Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Phillip Johnson on the recent PBS Nova program on the Dover Trial – partial transcript

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A friend was kind enough to provide a transcript of a podcast of Phillip Johnson talking about the recent PBS Nova episode on the Dover Trial. The interviewer is Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute.

Here are points I thought particularly salient:

Johnson: … What’s going on here is a process of soothing. The scientific establishment has decided that the way to get a reluctant American public to put aside their doubts and believe what they’re being told in the mass media, and in the textbooks, and in the museums about evolution is absolutely true is to reassure them that it doesn’t threaten [their] religion. Then after they have been talked into accepting the theory, then the types like Richard Dawkins will come out and say, “Well actually now that you’ve accepted it, we have to tell you that it does destroy your religion.”

 …

Luskin: And all this raises a question that I would be very interested in your answer in Professor Johnson, because you have followed this debate for many years. You’re aware that for decades the scientific community has been issuing statements to the effect of science and religion do not conflict. They may even say they’re totally different spheres that can’t even conflict in principle. And yet public skepticism of evolution remains very high. What does this say to you? Why are these attempts to, as you put it, soothe religious people regarding evolution, really seems like it is failing (at least) the public that is largely religious and is still very skeptical.

Johnson: Yes, they are still very skeptical, and they don’t believe the reassurances. They know in fact what’s going on. The fact is that the public is not as stupid as the experts wish them to be.

Um, no.

Here’s the whole of my friend’s partial transcript.

Also: And what if the Dover school board had just put an alternative text in the library?

Comments
Semiotic 007, If "most Christians believe that absolute Truth is something a person apprehends in an individual, not communal, relationship with God" then most Christians don't understand Truth. Yes, the Holy Spirit speaks personally to us, but we are accountable to the community of faith for our interpretations of Truth. That's why church councils met to condemn heresies. The Trinity is a community; so also, no Christian is an individual, but part of the body of Christ. Luther used to like quoting Cyprian: "He who does not have the church as his mother cannot have God as his Father."kbombbilly
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
I think what the ID movement needs is more private donations. To have a strong research program that can flesh out a system comparable to darwinism, it takes money and time and effort. I'll donate once I have a job. :)Collin
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
I can't wait for "expelled" to come out.Collin
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
Semiotic007, You don't get to decide what's Truth. Truth is decided for you by God. It's written down in the Bible for you to see plainly. If you don't understand it as written, have someone explain it to you. It's not up to you to decide what's Truth and to compartmentalize like that. It's up to God.Nochange
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
Joseph, are you running?getawitness
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
All I can say about this fiasco is I cannot wait until I get elected to a school board.Joseph
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
This is really responding to Denyse's final sentence (which is the inevitable link to one of her own blogs), but I seriously doubt that the ACLU or anybody of like mind would sue if the book were placed in the library. If -- as with the books at issue in the Dover trial -- they were donated.getawitness
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
The scientific establishment has decided that the way to get a reluctant American public to put aside their doubts and believe what they’re being told in the mass media, and in the textbooks, and in the museums about evolution is absolutely true is to reassure them that it doesn’t threaten [their] religion.
First, I want to say that I was pleased to see Prof. Johnson present as well as he did in the NOVA special. I was also pleased to see a reenactment of Kenneth Miller's Dover testimony emphasizing that scientific belief is anything but absolute. Scientific beliefs are the consensus of a self-identifying community of investigators into empirical phenomena. The community continually asserts that all of its beliefs are tentative explanations, though certain broad assertions seem firm (e.g., that species do evolve -- a belief accepted by many ID advocates). How one would come by the notion that any Christian scientist would assert the absolute truth of scientific explanations is beyond me. In contrast, most Christians believe that absolute Truth is something a person apprehends in an individual, not communal, relationship with God. The Truth is not just a matter of what people can agree upon (consensus) when they look outward (make empirical observations), but what a single person knows when he or she turns to prayer or contemplation and listens to a still, quiet voice. I am a person of conscience and intelligence. I spent a number of years of my life working to come by a dialectic in which the two modes of belief I just described could coexist. While I can see that other people of conscience might disagree with me, I can't see the excuse for any Christian to insult someone like me. I am doing nothing but to seek the light, and to share whatever light I have found with others.Semiotic 007
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
“Judgment Day” has a meaning not at all intended by its creators. It is the worldview produced by Darwinism that is on trial, not any specific movement such as ID. The arrogance and bias on display in the film are signs of fear. No serious rebuttal to the Dover ruling was permitted because the Darwinists see their empire crumbing and are working frantically to preserve it. But what they fear will come upon them. Judgment day is at hand in the court of public opinion, where philosophical empires rise and fall. Materialism cannot account for the mystery of life.allanius
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
Leo: why? I don't follow your reasoning.Chemfarmer
November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
Johnson: Yes, they are still very skeptical, and they don't believe the reassurances. They know in fact what's going on. The fact is that the public is not as stupid as the experts wish them to be.
Yes. And computer software engineers are especially not as stupid as the experts wish them to be, because software engineers know something about what it takes to make information-processing systems and machinery work, while evolutionary biologists engage in storytelling and unsupported extrapolations from the trivially obvious. Once it was discovered in the mid 20th century that living systems are not fundamentally based on chemistry, physics, and probability -- but on information and information processing -- the entire Darwinian blind-watchmaker edifice should have collapsed immediately. Attempts to prop it up are becoming increasingly desperate and embarrassing, not to mention unethical. Such attempts will last for a while longer, but ultimately these efforts will represent one of the most embarrassing and shameful episodes in the history of science.GilDodgen
November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
I think it is somewhat disingenuous to ask a question starting with "And all this raises a question that I would be very interested in your answer in Professor Johnson, because you have followed this debate for many years" what in fact he is very much a part of the debate and deeply entrenched on one side.leo
November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply