RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Phil Johnson, Links to interviews, works, reviews, etc< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
niiicholas



Posts: 319
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2002,23:30   

Hi,

This would seem to be as good a place as any to collect links/references to things like Johnson's

- works
- reviews of his works
- interviews
- online talks

...etc.  I think there is already at least one fairly comprehensive PJ links page on the web so maybe we could just 'high-grade' particularly interesting things here.

E.g., I started this thread because I just heard about this link:

Berkeleyís Radical
An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson


Johnson bares his soul & gives quite a detailed history of his own 'evolution'.

Quote

You have said there is no natural explanation for the rise of genetic information. How important is that question in the debate?

PJ: The Wedge of Truth is all about those issues. The scientific key is, "No natural processes create genetic information." As soon as we get that out, thereís only one way the debate can go because Darwinists arenít going to come up with a mechanism. Theyíll start out talking about the peppered moth, and when that self-destructs, then theyíll say, "Oh, self-organizing systems, or the fourth law of thermodynamics," and other nonsense, which is just covering up ignorance.

Genetic information is the issue, but it isnít the final issue. After you make that breakthrough, then you see other ways in which the theory is questionable. Darwinists will say, "Oh, well, maybe the mechanism has some problems, but the "fact of evolution"ócommon ancestryóis not in question. We distinguish the fact of evolution from the mechanism of evolution."

But thatís a bogus distinction because the "fact"ócommon ancestryóincorporates the mechanism. Itís just a matter of "now you see it, now you donít." They are saying the mechanism by which a father and mother give birth to children is the same mechanism by which our "bacterial ancestors" gave birth to human beings. They say itís all a process of natural reproduction and naturally occurring variation in the offspring.

Biologists affiliated with the Intelligent Design movement nail down the distinction by showing that DNA mutations do not create evolution in any significant sense. Instead, they make birth defects, so the whole thing is false from the get-go. There is no way you can establish that a bacterium is the parent of a complex animal. There is no mechanism to make the change, no historical or fossil evidence that such a change ever occurred, and thereís no way to duplicate the process in a lab.

Once you get that in the debate, then we will be poised for a metaphysical and intellectual reversal that is every bit as profound as the one with Copernicus. People will say, "My gosh, weíve been completely misled by this fundamental truth of the creation story of our culture. We can no longer understand the world that way."

How do you change the way people regard the authority of science? Get them to think of it as a much more limited thing. Science is very reliable when scientists stick to the kinds of things that can be tested by refutable experiments, but much of what they tell us is outside that. When they have to fake the mechanisms, it becomes a very dubious philosophy. That raises the question of why so many very brilliant people were misled for so long and did such a good job of rationalizing these things.

When the mechanism of Darwinism becomes discredited, itís like a train thatís been turned around. You can say, "Well, thatís interesting, but the train is still in the same place. The world, Yale, Berkeley, are still there. The New York Times is still telling us what to think. So why isnít everything different?" Well, it is different, but you canít see it yet. The train is turned in the opposite direction. Itís going to start out very slowly, but itís moving on the logical tracks towards something very different, and when we get there, our great-great-grand-children will see how different things are.


Not a man with small goals, PJ.

Note also the "scientific key" to the whole ID argument (according to Johnson): "No natural processes create genetic information."  Hmm.  I think I'll start a thread.

nic

  
  0 replies since May 29 2002,23:30 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]