Maligning Phil Johnson, with Lots of Rhetoric but Little Substance

_{Jonathan McLatchie

December 6, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

We recently celebrated the 20th anniversary of the publication of Phillip Johnson’s groundbreaking book, Darwin on Trial. Phillip Johnson’s meticulous skill in scrutinizing the metaphysical assumptions undergirding much of evolutionary naturalism launched the modern intelligent design movement and set in motion a chain of events that must inevitably lead to the toppling of Darwinism in scientific academia.

Click here to continue reading>>>

Comments

Check out this news story about some new Cambrian critter.
Paterson said the discovery showed that anomalocaris had lived in well-lit, clear waters and had developed sophisticated vision extremely rapidly, likely triggering an evolutionary "arms race" among other creatures.
It evolved sophisticated vision early. How do we know? Because it had sophisticated vision, early. (Duh!) This non-explanation is then proposed as an explanation for other evolutionary changes. You see, there was never a possibility that anomalocaris would just eat everything in sight until it destroyed its own ecosystem, leaving the stragglers to cannibalize and go extinct. Instead, it kicks off, you know, your run-of-the-mill garden variety evolutionary arms race. No need to elaborate on that. How does a science writer not question this? How does Ms. Cooper not question what, if anomalocaris triggers this 'arms race,' was it itself a response to? Why did it have more lenses in its eyes than any of its descendants?
Spines, poison glands and other defence mechanisms had probably erupted among creatures eager to escape detection by its huge eyes
I'm speechless. Someone please tell me that this was a gaffe resulting from a researcher and a science writer who don't understand how evolution works. Here are his credentials. Darwinists, is this man an anomaly? Do you acknowledge him or disown him? What about the Australian University of New England? Is that a good place to study biology? I would really love to hear someone acknowledge these statements, that these 'arms races' and 'eruptions' and in fact 'likely' or 'probable,' or disavow them.ScottAndrews2_{December 9, 2011
December
12
Dec
9
09
2011
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

It describes how populations change.
It has the potential to explain certain variations within populations, such as varying colors among cichlid fishes. That is accurate. It neither predicts nor explains the populations themselves. Evolution does not explain fish - fins, gills, eyes, scales, bones, anything. It "predicts" them in the most tautological sense. Gills, fins, and eyes benefit fish, and evolution predicts that living things will have features that benefit them or lead to reproduction. By definition no living thing, past, present, or future, can have any attribute or behavior not predicted by evolution. That's why it's a tautology.ScottAndrews2_{December 9, 2011
December
12
Dec
9
09
2011
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

Intelligent Design and baraminology also describe how populations change. Also SCIENTIFIC ideas do need to make predictions. Strange that you wouldn't understand taht. However if you are admitting that the theory of evolution is a religion and not science, then it is acceptable for it to not make predictions- just get it out of science classrooms...Joe_{December 9, 2011
December
12
Dec
9
09
2011
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

It doesn’t make any predictions beyond a population may change or stay the same.
It describes how populations change. If failure to make successful predictions were the criterion for for keeping ideas round, religion would have died long ago. I believe Christian scripture contains several prohibitions against making predictions or consulting those who make predictions.Petrushka_{December 9, 2011
December
12
Dec
9
09
2011
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

Mine isn't a prediction- this is what I said- all facts, no predictions: You know dmullenix the current THEORY OF EVOLUTION might as well be dead because it has proven to be a fruitless and useless heuristic. It doesn’t make any predictions beyond a population may change or stay the same. It relies heavily on vast eons of time and therefor cannot be tested. Also it uses imagination as evidence! So whatever, you can have that useless pos. A statement of FACT- I take it that is what has you confused as your position cannot deal with facts.Joe_{December 9, 2011
December
12
Dec
9
09
2011
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

The religion of Chaos to Order has been around at least since ancient Babylon. It will not go away.Mytheos_{December 9, 2011
December
12
Dec
9
09
2011
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

Ok Joe, I've given you a list of 67 people predicting the downfall of evolution. The predictions range from before Darwin to 2008. The predictors range from prominent 19th century scientists to the head of the Southern Baptist Church. Not one of those predictions have come true. So what's different about YOUR prediction that makes you think it's going to be correct?dmullenix_{December 9, 2011
December
12
Dec
9
09
2011
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT}

Correct.Mytheos_{December 8, 2011
December
12
Dec
8
08
2011
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT}

Don't forget their parent group in Australia, CMI. Creation Ministries International.Mytheos_{December 8, 2011
December
12
Dec
8
08
2011
10:59 PM
10
10
59
PM
PDT}

Thats a great list and probably the tip of the iceberg. Its quite possible the sharper people who paid attention to the claims of evolution always smelled it was without foundation in evidence. no one asked them. one must write a book. Can creationists that attend this forum get on the great list.? Actually AIG and ICR do articles on great "scientists' who rejected evolution.Robert Byers_{December 8, 2011
December
12
Dec
8
08
2011
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT}

Glad to see that you still have nothing, dmullenix.Joe_{December 8, 2011
December
12
Dec
8
08
2011
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

Glad to add you to the list, Joe.dmullenix_{December 8, 2011
December
12
Dec
8
08
2011
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

You know dmullenix the current THEORY OF EVOLUTION might as well be dead because it has proven to be a fruitless and useless heuristic. It doesn't make any predictions beyond a population may change or stay the same. It relies heavily on vast eons of time and therefor cannot be tested. Also it uses imagination as evidence! So whatever, you can have that useless pos.Joe_{December 8, 2011
December
12
Dec
8
08
2011
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

You know Joe, people have been saying that evolution is doomed since before Darwin published “Origins”. Here’s one partial list of people confidently predicting the immanent downfall of evolution: (The earliest quotes predict the downfall of the Old Earth, but that would kill off evolution too.) http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/demise.html It’s way too long to print the actual failed predictions of Darwin’s demise, I’ll just list the dates, names and publications. Feel free to follow the link for the quotes. 1825 Granville Penn predicting the death of old earth geology.”Mineral and Mosaic Geologies” 1840 Granville Penn “Conversations on Geology” 1840 John Murray “Truth of Revelation” 1850 “Philalethes”, a 19th century “handle” cited by Hugh Miller, “Footsteps of the Creator” 1860 Charles Darwin reporting the views of Richard Owen 1871 Patrick M’Farlane, Esq. “Antidote Against the Unscriptural and Unscientific Tendency of Modern Geology” 1878 Thomas Cooper “The Stone Book and The Mosaic Record of Creation” 1894 J. William Dawson “The Meeting Place of History and Geology” 1895 F.R. Wegg-Prosser “scientific Evidence of the Deluge” 1903 Professor Zockler “The Other Side of Evolution” 1904 Eberhard Denert, “At the Deathbed of Darwinism” 1905 Luther Tracy Townsend – “Collapse of Evolution” 1912 Isaac Newton Vail – “The Earth’s Annual System” 1922 George McCready Price quoted in “The Church The Schools And Evolution” 1924 George McCready Price quoted in “Evolution: Is It Philosphical, Scientific Or Scriptural?” 1929 Harold W. Clark “Back to Creationism” 1935 Harry Rimmer “The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science” 1940 L. Allen Higley “Science and Truth” 1961 Evan Shute “Flaws in the Theory of Evolution” 1963 Henry Morris “The Twilight of Evolution” 1970 John W. Klotz “Gene, Genesis and Evolution” 1975 Clifford Wilson “In the Beginning God…” 1976 Duane T. Gish “Cracks in the NeoDarwinian Jericho, Part 1” Impact, 42 1983 Scott M. Huse “The Collapse of Evolution” 1984 Henry M. Morris “A History of Modern Creationism” 1984 Donaldl E. Chittick “The Controversy: Roots of the Creation Evolution Conflict” 1985 Henry M. Morris “Creation and the Modern Christian” 1987 D. James Kennedy “John Ankerberg Show” 1988 Luther D. Sunderland “Darwin’s Enigma” 1989 Henry M. Morris “Evolution – A House Divided” 1990 Mark Looy “I think; Therefore, There is a Supreme Thinker” Impact, 208 1991 Duane T. Gish “The Big Bang Theory Collapses” 1993 Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon “Of Pandas and People” 1993 T. V. Varughese “Christianity and Technological Advance” 1994 John D. Morris “The Young Earth” 1994 Don Boys, “Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith” 1995 Henry M. Morris “Cosmology’s Holy Grail” Back to Genesis Feb 1995 1995 Phillip E. Johnson “What (If Anything) Hath God Wrought? Academic Freedom and the Religious Professor” 1996 Phillip E. Johnson “The Storyteller and the Scientist” First Things, Oct 1996 1997 David Buckna http://www.rae.org/collapse.html 1997 Henry Morris Back to Genesis, May 1997 1998 William A. Dembski “Mere Creation” 1998 William A. Dembski again in “Mere Creation” 1999 Patrick Henry Reardon “The World as Text” Touchtone, July/August 1999 2000 Rah Bohlin “Creation, Evolution & Modern Science” 2001 Henry Morris “The Scientific Case Against Evolution” Impact, 331 2001 Gregory J. Brewer “the Immanent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design” Impact 341 2002 Henry Morris “What are Evolutionists Afraid of?” Back to Genesis 168 2002 Ralph O. Muncaster “Why Are Scientists Turning to God?” 2002 Paul Nelson “Here’s a prediction. Universal CD [common descent] will be gasping for breath in two or three years, if not sooner.” http://www.iscid.org/workshops-2002-paulnelson.php hp 2003 Ralph O. Muncaster “Dismantling Evolution” 2003 Henry F. Schaefer “Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?” 2003 Grant R. Jeffrey “Creation” 2004 Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross “Origins of Life” 2004 William A. Dembski “The Design Revolution” 2004 William A. Dembski “The Measure of Design: A conversation about the past, present & future of Darwinism and Design” Touchstone 17(6) 2004 Phillip Johnson “The Demise of Naturalism” World, April 3, 2004 2004 Jonathan Wells “What ever happened to Evolution?” World April 3, 2004 2004 R. Albert Mohler, Jr. president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary http://www.christianpost.com/dbase/editorial/203/8|14|21|28/4.htm 2005 Richard Thompson Thomas More Law Center – PBS “The Journal Editorial Report” May 27, 2005 2006 William A. Dembski “I see this all disintegrating very quickly” Associated Press 5/2/06 2006 Denyse O’Leary “It’s almost not worth deciding what to do about Darwinism, because it is on the way out anyway.” “What I would tell the Catholic Church: re intelligent design and evolution” http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/private.php?do=showpm&pmid=230270 2006 Jay Richards Acton Institute http://www.christianpost.com/article/20061118/23538.htm 2007 Jerry Fodor http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/fodo01_.html 2007 Jonathan Wells http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK27XO8HQYK20IX 2008 Steve Fuller “Science vs Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution” 2008 Barry Arrington Uncommon Descent To this list, we can now add: 2011 Jonathan M, Joe and Robert Byers Uncommon Descent If these aren't enough, there are lots more lists like this floating around the internet.dmullenix_{December 8, 2011
December
12
Dec
8
08
2011
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT}

AMEN. So few, so little time ago, are so famous and will be more so as evolutionism does indeed topple over. A little help from us YEC too. If evolutionism is wrong then it does indeed just need sharp people putting the attrition of truth upon it.Robert Byers_{December 7, 2011
December
12
Dec
7
07
2011
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT}

Yes it appears that "scientific academia" is just too stupid to realize that their pet project was stillborn 150+ years ago.Joe_{December 7, 2011
December
12
Dec
7
07
2011
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

"... must inevitably lead to the toppling of Darwinism in scientific academia." As The Straight Dope (http://www.straightdope.com/) says, "It's taking longer than we thought."dmullenix_{December 7, 2011
December
12
Dec
7
07
2011
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply