Jobar

It is rude to compare lawyers to creationists.

Ummmm... rude to who?

theyeti

Was this you?



theyeti

djmullen

Before you go see Johnson, plug "Phillip Johnson AIDS" into Google and look at what pops up. For instance, at http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/pjohnson.htm, you'll find five articles written by Johnson where he denies that the HIV virus causes AIDS.

None of the articles dates after 1996, probably because the whole idea has been so thoroughly and tragicly disproven by events in Africa, where non-homosexuals and non-intravenous drug users are getting infected by HIV and dying like flies from AIDS.

Note that the tactics used by Johnson against HIV/AIDS are much the same as those used against evolution: it's all a case of poor thinking aided by outright fraud by the so-called scientists.

What a sick-o.

Coragyps

Hey, Groove - where and when is Johnson speaking? If it's out here on the Rolling Plains I'll try to come watch, too.

MrDarwin

If anybody has a chance to ask him, I'd like to know what Johnson would accept as evidence of evolution, in the fossil record or otherwise. He spends his entire book criticizing evolutionary theory but never says what he would find convincing.

Oh, and ask him if he really thinks that 99+% of all scientists are either stupid or involved in a conspiracy to hide the "truth" about evolution, and have even managed to get their theistic colleagues in on it.

Kevin

Johnson's speaking engagements are given on this page.

pz

We need counterbalance!

You can find the NCSE's schedule of speaking engagements on this page.

I'm planning to catch Eugenie Scott's talk in St. Cloud, MN on "Creation and Evolution: News From the Front" on Friday evening -- any other atheists here planning to show up?

hezekiah jones

"Possibilities are to go to ... Marquette (Bethel Baptist Church and other locations), Milwaukee (Search Ministries) and Madison (Crossroads Church). This is still under consideration."

Apparently Johnson's "people" are requesting that Marquette sponsor his visit. I think I might object in writing to the use of my tuition fees in spreading P.J.'s gibberish. (Although I might stop short of asking they not be used to support the Catholic faith.)

"Search Ministries" and "Crossroads Church," on the other hand, sound like perfectly appropriate venues for the Johnsonian version of biology.

Primordial Groove

It seems all the links are pre-mid 90's. Is there anything more up to date (I can't find)? Has his view or position changed any in the last decade? Are there any new discoveries that need to be discussed that he wouldn't want brought forth at his sermon?

Does he present 'evidence' against evolution during his speeches? If so, how credible is his evidence?

He touches on ID in some of his articles. Does he have evidence of ID at work? OR is he just attacking evolution and letting the godbots think for themselves? For example: since evolution is not true, goddidit. or, using his evidence, can one bring up an alien taking a piss in the primordial soup which lead to Intelligent Design.

It seems alot of the articles attack his person instead of his evidence. Am I missing something?

Keep in mind I am not a scientist. My views on evolution come from the fact that it is the sceintific view and from the evidence presented at such sites as talk origins. IT makes sense to me, but, that in itself is not enough to take on a lawyer in Q and A.

I need ammo. I don't want to go in and attack his person instead of the evidence he presents. I think he will spin it and therefore, make his views more valid in the eyes of the 'congregation'.

EDIT:
Also, alot of reviews point to his lack of scientific knowledge, athough, he knows enough to make his case to people that are not 'trained' in the scientific method. I will not be able to refute his claims. I do not posess the knowledge to do this.

But, I can seed doubt without the full knowledge of the scientific community. I just need an angle of my own. Should my angle be his lack of relavent scientific training? After all, why should someone believe a lawyer over an Evolutionary Biologist? Is there something else I can use?

theyeti

Johnson's only "science" book as far as I know is Darwin on Trial, which is itself from 1993, so you shouldn't be too surprised that criticisms come from the mid-90's. His more recent books are about cultural and theological issues, at least from what I can tell, and they merely assume the truth of intelligent design a priori. Nevertheless, here are a couple of recent reviews of DoT:

Darwin on Trial. Johnson on Trial.

The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth?

You have to remember that Johnson knows almost nothing about science, so trying to spring some recent discoveries on him will get no reaction. He will simply claim that he's not there to talk about the evidence, and that any such discoveries are irrelevant. He will speak about "getting the right issues on the table" or some such vague nonsense, in an effort to paint scientists as suppressing ID and hiding the truth.

His foreys into the evidence for evolution are little more than attempts to raise reasonable doubt, for the purpose of creating a vaccume, and then to fill that vaccume with God. He has a ready made response for everything, and he uses every lawyerly trick in the book. Here's an excerpt from the second article I linked to above:

Johnson is a snake and a hypocrite.

He simply rehashes old creationist arguments. The fossil record has gaps and disproves evolution. No new "information" can evolve. Molecular biology disproves evolution. He will bring up Haeckle's embryos, the peppered moth, and probably Piltdown man as well to try to paint evolutionists as being dishonest.

However, he's likely to say that he's not there to talk about the evidence, and instead talk about "the right issues" or something like that, basically giving the standard ID schtick about "why won't they accept the possibility of design?" (Answer: atheistic matierialistic dogmatic adherence to naturalistic bias.) Yet talk about the evidence he will. It's just that by claiming to do otherwise, he will give himself reasonable cover so that he doesn't need to address the evidence where it's inconvienient for him.

Neither Johnson nor any IDist will ever try to demonstrate evidence of ID at work. From their point of view, the evidence for ID consists of the evidence against evolution. It's the classic God of the Gaps fallacy. The bit about the aliens is just a ploy to prevent them having to find positive evidence (we're just looking for "design" afterall, not who designed it) and a ploy to evade the 1st amendment's prohibition on religious indoctrination in schools. Johnson will make it abundantly clear though that he believes his designer to be God. But the peculiar way in which they've framed their arguments is intended to produce the desired answer without having to defend it.

Johnsons' arguments are largely of a philosophical nature. His claims are mostly based on how one interprets the evidence rather than the actual evidence itself. He employs a bizzare mixture of post-modernism to argue against evolution, logical positivism to establish ID's claims to truth, and pre-modernism to establish God as the designer. Given his approach, the proper thing to do is to point out his inconsistencies and absurdities (what you might see as "attacking the person") since he will just twist the evidence itself to fit his views, and then accuse you of being too blinded by your bias to see where you're mistaken. Like I said, he's a world-class hypocrite.

theyeti