I gave the entire Washington Post article on Phil Johnson here two days ago (go here). I want to draw your attention to two quotes in that article, one by Stuart Kauffman, the other by Theo Roszak. Kauffman is a well known self-organizational theorist. Roszak was a popular countercultural figure two and three decades ago (I remember him especially in the 80s for his critique of strong AI). Finally I want to draw your attention to a closing comment by Lou Dobbs in an interview of Michael Ruse, Jonathan Wells, and John Morris a few days ago on CNN.
Expect more of these sorts of openings for ID and criticisms of conventional evolutionary theory in the coming days and with it a crisis of confidence over Darwinism in the population at large. On the other hand, expect the Darwinian hardcore to dig in their heels ever more firmly.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Give Johnson and the intelligent-design movement their due Ã¢â‚¬â€ they are asking terribly important questions,Ã¢â‚¬Â says Stuart A. Kauffman, director of the Institute for Biocomplexity at the University of Calgary. Ã¢â‚¬Å“To question whether patterns and complexity, at the level of the cell or the universe, bespeak intelligent design is not stupid in the least. Ã¢â‚¬Å“I simply believe theyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve come up with the wrong answers.Ã¢â‚¬Â
Note that Kauffman offered the same opening to ID in our Trotter Prize lectures that he and I shared last month (go here and here).
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Some biologists still argue that you can get to high evolutionary forms purely through natural selection,Ã¢â‚¬Â says Theodore Roszak, a noted historian of science. Ã¢â‚¬Å“That involves more faith in chance than religious people have in the Bible.Ã¢â‚¬Â
DOBBS: OK, that question isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t going to work because weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re going to talk across one another, and IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m the only one who gets to talk across folks here, just bear with me.
The fact is, that evolution, Darwinism, is not a fully explained or completely rigorous and defined science that has testable results within it. Like aÃ¢â‚¬Â¦
RUSE: Now, who says that? Is that you?
DOBBS: I do. I do. And, if I may finish, Michael. Michael, I said, only I get to talk over anyone.
Note especially Dobbs’s claim: “The fact is, that evolution, Darwinism, is not a fully explained or completely rigorous and defined science that has testable results within it. ” This is an amazing concession by the mainstream media. If this keeps happening, Darwin’s public face will be permanently disfigured. No wonder that the Darwinists instantly reacted to Dobbs (go here).