An important quote from Phillip Johnson...

[Punchy]

Phillip Johnson's own description of his purpose:

My purpose is to examine the scientific evidence on its own terms, being careful to distinguish the evidence itself from any religious or philosophical bias that might distort our interpretation of that evidence…..The question I want to investigate is whether Darwinism is based on a fair assessment of the scientific evidence, or whether it is another kind of fundamentalism. (p. 14).

Exposing Darwinism to possible falsification would not imply support for any other theory, certainly not any pseudoscientific theory based upon a religious dogma. Accepting Popper's challenge is simply to take the first step towards understanding: the recognition of ignorance. Falsification is not a defeat for science, but a liberation. It removes the dead weight of prejudice, and thereby frees us to look for the truth. (1st Ed., p.154; 2nd Ed., p. 156)

Phillip E. Johnson Darwin on Trial
(1st Edition, 1991, Regnery Gateway, Washington DC)
(2nd Edition, 1993, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois)
http://members.tripod.com/aslodge/id92.htm

Say what you will about Phillip Johnson, he is an intelligent man and good writer. In Darwin on Trial, he exposed the underlying philosophy behind evolutionary thinking in a way that few people have been able to accomplish. It's important to note that he's not a Biblical literalist nor a young earth creationist, but simply a man who found the evidence for Darwinism unconvincing and its associated materialistic beliefs disturbing.

Peace.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Say what you will about Phillip Johnson, he is an intelligent man and good writer. In Darwin on Trial, he exposed the underlying philosophy behind evolutionary thinking in a way that few people have been able to accomplish. It's important to note that he's not a Biblical literalist nor a young earth creationist, but simply a man who found the evidence for Darwinism unconvincing and its associated materialistic beliefs disturbing.

Peace.

Then why does he call it "darwinism" and not "evolution"? What exactly is he arguing against?

 

[Punchy]

Then why does he call it "darwinism" and not "evolution"? What exactly is he arguing against?

Perhaps you should read the book to find out. It's at least worth reading for historical reasons, as it's greatly influenced the creation/evolution debate, especially in how it reaches beyond the usual young earth creationism vs. philosophical materialism false dichotomy.

 

[TheInstant]

My purpose is to examine the scientific evidence on its own terms, being careful to distinguish the evidence itself from any religious or philosophical bias that might distort our interpretation of that evidence…..The question I want to investigate is whether Darwinism is based on a fair assessment of the scientific evidence, or whether it is another kind of fundamentalism. (p. 14).

Sounds good to me, except for the "Darwinism" part. Is he talking about Evolution, or something else?

Exposing Darwinism to possible falsification would not imply support for any other theory, certainly not any pseudoscientific theory based upon a religious dogma.

Is he implying that Evolution has not been exposed to possible falsification?

Accepting Popper's challenge is simply to take the first step towards understanding: the recognition of ignorance. Falsification is not a defeat for science, but a liberation. It removes the dead weight of prejudice, and thereby frees us to look for the truth. (1st Ed., p.154; 2nd Ed., p. 156)

I agree with this.

Personally, I'm more interested in a person's actual arguments than whether or not they're a YEC or IDist or whatever. Do you think you could summarize some of them for us?

Say what you will about Phillip Johnson, he is an intelligent man and good writer. In Darwin on Trial, he exposed the underlying philosophy behind evolutionary thinking in a way that few people have been able to accomplish.

What underlying philosophy would that be? What do you mean by "evolutionary thinking?"

It's important to note that he's not a Biblical literalist nor a young earth creationist, but simply a man who found the evidence for Darwinism unconvincing and its associated materialistic beliefs disturbing.

What associated materialistic beliefs?

 

[Punchy]

Again, to answer your questions, it's best to read the text itself. Darwin on Trial is a brief read and definitely worth the effort. Some things written are strikingly accurate, others should be taken with a grain of salt, but it is an all around good book.

Peace.

 

[Baggins]

Again, to answer your questions, it's best to read the text itself. Darwin on Trial is a brief read and definitely worth the effort. Some things written are strikingly accurate, others should be taken with a grain of salt, but it is an all around good book.

Peace.

Some reviews by scientists:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/resources/165252685546.asp

Darwin on Trial teaches little that is accurate about either the nature of science, or the topic of evolution. It is recommended neither by scientists nor educators. Among the book’s critics are evangelical Christian scientists who have criticized Darwin on Trial´s scientific accuracy.

http://www.asa3.org/gray/evolution_trial/dotreview.html

In my view Phillip Johnson has not succeeded in his attempt to unseat the theory of evolution as the dominant view of the development of life on earth

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/honesty.cfm

Conspiracy theory is really what Darwin on Trial is all about. Johnson opens his book with discussions of science and material that sounds agreeable and reasonable, but this is just the hook to draw the reader in; by the last few chapters, Johnson's venom is in full spate and he is insisting that the scientific establishment has nothing better to do than persecute harmless creationists. What is perhaps most disturbing about this book, from a Christian perspective, is Johnson's willingness to play on the baser instincts of his audience

There is a rebuttal on stephenjaygould.org as well, by the master. But his site appears to be down at the moment

 

[Punchy]

You can rely on second-hand information or you can read the book yourself. Do whatever whatever is the most open-minded.

 

[sfs]

You can rely on second-hand information or you can read the book yourself. Do whatever whatever is the most open-minded.

I did read the book myself. I thought it was terrible, and that was before I actually studied evolution for a living. It made me so angry that my wife had to tell me I wasn't allowed to read any more of him -- it wouldn't have been good for my health. I've also heard him speak and exchanged a couple of emails with him once.

Johnson is an excellent lawyer, and argues like one. Lawyers are not interested in presenting balanced arguments or in getting at the truth, but in advocating for a position. What I remember most about Johnson was the way he routinely insinuates that theistic evolutionists have discreditable motives for embracing the theory of evolution, without once presenting even a shred of evidence for this position.

 

[Baggins]

You can rely on second-hand information or you can read the book yourself. Do whatever whatever is the most open-minded.

If Stephen Jay Gould said it was a load of doodah, that's good enough for me.

As I said before life is too short and too full of well written science books to bother with polemic written by lawyers

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I've read some supporters of Philip Johnson say that because he's a lawyer he's got a mind trained to finding the truth. Wouldn't it be more correct to say that a lawyer has a mind trained towards persuading people towards a point of view they've already decided on, by fair means or foul?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I've read some supporters of Philip Johnson say that because he's a lawyer he's got a mind trained to finding the truth. Wouldn't it be more correct to say that a lawyer has a mind trained towards persuading people towards a point of view they've already decided on, by fair means or foul?

 

[Baggins]

I've read some supporters of Philip Johnson say that because he's a lawyer he's got a mind trained to finding the truth. Wouldn't it be more correct to say that a lawyer has a mind trained towards persuading people towards a point of view they've already decided on, by fair means or foul?

Lawyers aren't trained to find the truth.

They are trained to persuade a jury of the strength of their case, often by misrepresenting the opposing case.

Those people must have never seen a court case thriller, both lawyers on a case can't be right and yet they both lead their cases with as much conviction as is possible.

 

[Punchy]

If Stephen Jay Gould said it was a load of doodah, that's good enough for me.

Johnson responds to Gould's criticism in the epilogue to Darwin On Trial. You would know this if you had actually read the book.

 

[Split Rock]

What I remember most about Johnson was the way he routinely insinuates that theistic evolutionists have discreditable motives for embracing the theory of evolution, without once presenting even a shred of evidence for this position.

"What theistic evolutionists have failed above all to comprehend is that the conflict is not over “facts” but over ways of thinking. The problem is not just with any specific doctrine of Darwinian science, but with the naturalistic rules of thought that Darwinian scientists employ to derive those doctrines. If scientists had actually observed natural selection creating new organs, or had seen a step-by-step process of fundamental change consistently recorded in the fossil record, such observations could readily be interpreted as evidence of God’s use of secondary causes to create. But Darwinian scientists have not observed anything like that. What they have done is to assume as a matter of first principle that purposeless material processes can do all the work of biological creation because, according to their philosophy, nothing else was available. They have defined their task as finding the most plausible -- or least implausible -- description of how biological creation could occur in the absence of a creator. The specific answers they derive may or may not be reconcilable with theism, but the manner of thinking is profoundly atheistic. To accept the answers as indubitably true is inevitably to accept the thinking that generated those answers. That is why I think the appropriate term for the accommodationist position is not “theistic evolution,” but rather theistic naturalism. Under either name, it is a disastrous error." - Philip Johnson, Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin Christianity Today October 24, 1994 p.26 †

 

[sfs]

Johnson responds to Gould's criticism in the epilogue to Darwin On Trial. You would know this if you had actually read the book.

Rather than just telling everyone to read the book, why not pick an argument you found particularly persuasive and summarize it? An exhange consisting of "This book is great" alternating with "No, it stinks" isn't much of a discussion.

 

[Tenka]

It's important to note that he's not a Biblical literalist nor a young earth creationist, but simply a man who found the evidence for Darwinism unconvincing and its associated materialistic beliefs disturbing.

Even more importantly to note is that the man examining a scientific theory in ongoing development by innumerable scientists for more than 100 years is not himself a scientist.

 

[And-U-Say]

Say what you will about Phillip Johnson, he is an intelligent man and good writer. In Darwin on Trial, he exposed the underlying philosophy behind evolutionary thinking in a way that few people have been able to accomplish. It's important to note that he's not a Biblical literalist nor a young earth creationist, but simply a man who found the evidence for Darwinism unconvincing and its associated materialistic beliefs disturbing.

Peace.

The words "intelligent quote" and "Phillip Johnson" should not be used in the same sentence. Unless... "Phillip Johnson was reading a book and came across an intelligent quote from the author." There we go.

 

[tcampen]

The words "intelligent quote" and "Phillip Johnson" should not be used in the same sentence. Unless... "Phillip Johnson was reading a book and came across an intelligent quote from the author." There we go.

Johnson appears to be somewhat hypocritical in claiming he has no ax to grind or anything other than scientific integrity to pursue, when in reality the foundation of his analysis is through the lense of a dogmatic, religious wordview:

"In any case, Darwinistic evolution would be a most peculiar creative method for God to choose, given the Darwinistic insistence that biological evolution was undirected. That requirement means that God neither programmed evolution in advance nor stepped in from time to time to pull it in the right direction. How then did God ensure that humans would come into existence so that salvation history would have a chance to occur?" (p. 12, Phillip Johnson, January 1993 issue of First Things.)

When you start with the theological necessity that God specially created humans, it's pretty hard to be eevn remotely objective towards biological evolution.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Johnson responds to Gould's criticism in the epilogue to Darwin On Trial. You would know this if you had actually read the book.

Punchy,
You have a valid point that we should all read the book. But bringing it up on a debate forum and then just standing back and exhorting people to read it rather than taking the knowledg you have apparently gained from it to defend any points is not really the whole jist of what goes on here.

Indeed if Johnson has rebutted Gould then please enlighten us. Not everyone has all the time in the world to just do your bidding. Believe it or not, I don't just wait until I get my marching orders from Punchy Posts to do something with my time.

Make me believe Johnson is on track.

There are many here who are fully conversant with evolutionary theory and they will be glad to explain anything that Johnson says is incorrect.

(And if you want to know how lawyers approach science you should really try doing a science experiment based on a patent some time. Really, try it. If you want to see how not to write science or how science and law differ dramatically in their overall approach compare a peer reviewed science publication to a patent.)

 

[Loudmouth]

Phillip Johnson's own description of his purpose:

My purpose is to examine the scientific evidence on its own terms, being careful to distinguish the evidence itself from any religious or philosophical bias that might distort our interpretation of that evidence….

Baloney. He already claims that an intelligent designer exists but has zero evidence for one. The only way to examine SCIENTIFIC evidence on it's own terms is through the SCIENTIFIC METHOD which is methodological naturalism. Johnson regularly conflates methodological naturalism with ontological naturalism (aka philosophical naturalism). How can Johnson honestly claim to be the paragon of objectivity when he throws out a methodology because it conflicts with his religious convictions?

The question I want to investigate is whether Darwinism is based on a fair assessment of the scientific evidence, or whether it is another kind of fundamentalism.

No he doesn't. He wants to do away with "scientific materialism" (his invented conflation of methodological and ontological naturalism). The Wedge Document makes this all but obvious.

Exposing Darwinism to possible falsification would not imply support for any other theory, certainly not any pseudoscientific theory based upon a religious dogma.

Really? Then he needs to do some house cleaning at the Discovery Institute. The argument they systematically put forth is "if not evolution then intelligent design". Also, this makes his purpous superfluous at best given the fact that evolution is tested every day in labs across the world. Every time a new genome is sequenced the theory is tested. Every time a new fossil is found the theory is tested. Either of these tests can result in the falsification of evolution (and I would assume "Darwinism" as defined by Johnson). To see a list of potential falsifications, go here, 29 or so in all).

Falsification is not a defeat for science, but a liberation. It removes the dead weight of prejudice, and thereby frees us to look for the truth.

Great!! What, if found, would falsify Intelligent Design? What!!?? You mean ID is not open to falsification? Surely you jest!!