Web site honours Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 16, 2011

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In a world increasingly dominated by the Word of the Beard, one California lawyer stood up against Darwin’s men, and for reason, reality, fact, evidence, and common sense.

Not “our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth,” not crackpot cosmologies underwritten by Darwinism, not “Christian, believe Darwin and others will turn to Christ,” not “natural selection can explain any circumstance and its opposite,” and not “science is at war with common sense.”

Twenty years ago. The signal was picked up around the world:

“You see? An American is speaking out … He actually says … ”

What Johnson did matters now as never before.

See also:Johnson’s shot heard round the world.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

You think that Darwinists would really be concerned by this man, given the quotes attributed to him by DrRec? His type plays right into their hands surely?Timbo_{November 21, 2011
November
11
Nov
21
21
2011
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

DrREC, I cannot deny what does not exist. So your accusation of a "blanket denial" is a fool's folly.Joseph_{November 18, 2011
November
11
Nov
18
18
2011
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Why so much hostility? Get a grip. I came to the conclusion as an engineer in multiple engineering disciplines that the Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection is a hopelessly pathetic hypothesis regarding the obviously highly sophisticated technology found in biological systems. Apparently, Antony Flew came to the same conclusion shortly before his death. I have followed the evidence to a reasonable design inference. You have followed unsupported speculation to an unreasonable conclusion that design cannot be considered as a possible explanation.GilDodgen_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

"Magic Johnson is HIV positive and does not have AIDS" I'm sure that has nothing to do with the outstanding medical treatment and drugs he has received while acting as a GlaxoSmithKline spokesperson. "and your position doesn’t have any science." LOL. Blanket denial.DrREC_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

eigenstate:
That’s all just how ideologies work, I guess, but just setting aside the poverty of these three books in terms of science, it’s striking to me that the truth about key scientific questions rests (or rested) on great part on explicitly non-scientific, non-merit-based criteria.
Umm those books exposed the poverty in terms of science, pertaining to the theory of evolution. Strange that through all of your babbling you cannot produce 1) a testable hypothesis pertaining to the proposed mechanisms nor 2) positive scientific evidence for your position.
He neatly embodies the most compelling criticisms of the movement from the pro-science faction.
WHAT pro-science faction? You cannot be talking about evolutionary "scientists" who don't have any science to support their position. But thanks- you continued babble proves that is all your position has to offer.Joseph_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

Evolutionists sure as heck shouldn't admire that book.Joseph_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT}

Magic Johnson is HIV positive and does not have AIDS and your position doesn't have any science.Joseph_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

No one here seems to admire Michael Denton's follow-up book, Nature's Destiny.Petrushka_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT}

@GilDodgen
While reading the comments of the detractors it became transparently obvious that they were in a state of panic and desperation at the thought that they had been exposed as charlatans who were selling snake oil in the name of science.
That's quite a damning admission, that that influenced you just as much as any meritorious content in the book you identified. A friend who regularly sends me links to that wonderful hub of political opinion 'FreeRepublic.com' in hopes that that will somehow influence me (I guess) likes to remind me that the "Flak is always worst when you are over the target!!", and that blistering criticism of the right wing idol of the day is really just reassuring signs that the "enemy" is "afraid" and acting out of desperation to destroy what they see as their imminent undoing. Etc. That's just a regular feauture of partisan psychology, isn't it? On any side of these issues? In any case, that's "psychological conflict" taking place of investigation on the merits, political inferences nudging out science (if science even ever had a place at the table). As a Christian, I and my friends took a lot of encouragement and "faith building" out of this kind of armchair psychology. When we were really walking with God, really following his will, and "abiding in Christ", the Enemy was outraged, and kicked his satanic attacks on us into high gear. These trials and tribulations were a comforting sign to us, even as they were trials, that were being faithful, courageous servants of the Lord, and those attacks just proved all the more how our Enemy, and enemies (lost unbelieving people, not Satan) were really just terrified because they knew that the Battle Had Been Won by Christ, Victorious, etc. That's all just how ideologies work, I guess, but just setting aside the poverty of these three books in terms of science, it's striking to me that the truth about key scientific questions rests (or rested) on great part on explicitly non-scientific, non-merit-based criteria. I welcome the elevation (or resurrection) of Phillip Johnson as a leading light and authority on ID. He neatly embodies the most compelling criticisms of the movement from the pro-science faction. ID as "out of the closet" pressure politics on cultural and religious questions -- leaving that cheap tuxedo behind for the vestments it feels so much more comfortable in -- serves everyone involved, I think.eigenstate_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT}

Darwinists cannot stand to have the flaws in their 'theory' exposed and must protect it from scientific scrutiny and criticism. Bravo to Johnson!!Blue_Savannah_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT}

Is this the HIV-denialist, "Wedge Document" Phillip Johnson? "We are taking an intuition most people have (the belief in God) and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator." "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." Thanks!DrREC_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT}

The three books that most influenced me: Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box Interestingly enough, it was the attacks on these authors (often personal) and their evidence, argumentation and logic, that influenced me just as much. While reading the comments of the detractors it became transparently obvious that they were in a state of panic and desperation at the thought that they had been exposed as charlatans who were selling snake oil in the name of science. Snake-oil panic is a sure sign that a pseudoscientist has been outed.GilDodgen_{November 16, 2011
November
11
Nov
16
16
2011
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply