theyeti

Go <a href="http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho19.htm" target="_blank">here</a> for a side-by-side comparison. Johnson really does just rip-off Theory in Crisis. Here's what Korthof has to say about the differences;
(emphasis original)

It's also comical to read Johnson's <a href="http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho22.htm" target="_blank">repsonse</a> to Korthof's <a href="http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho14.htm" target="_blank">review</a> of Darwin on Trial. Korthof's last statement in reponse to Johnson:
(emphasis added)

Korthof is normally very even-handed and always gives the author the benefit of the doubt. But even he finds himself sickened by Johnson.

theyeti

hezekiah jones

Good stuff. Interestingly Korthof makes reference to three articles by Larry Laudan in Michael Ruse's But Is It Science?, a collection that primarily deals with McLean v. Arkansas.

Our old pal Stephen Meyer cites Laudan's work therein quite approvingly in his famous Utah Law Review article; in fact Meyer names a section of his article after one of Laudan's papers: "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem," as if everyone's utterly given up trying to distinguish science from non-science.

Further, Meyer quotes extensively (to support his own "argument," of course) from yet another piece in Ruse's book by Philip L. Quinn. Funny thing is, Meyer completely ignores Quinn's discussion, by way of discrediting "creation science," of literature searches not unlike the literature searches that have been conducted to unearth evidence of "intelligent design" and "design theory," which, as we all know, come up empty.

I'll stop now: I don't want to give away all my secrets!

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]</p>

Bilboe

So where does Denton say that he repudiates anything that he wrote in Theory in Crisis? Remember, he never claimed in that book that ID was the anwer. He merely claimed that there were problems that Darwinian evolution couldn't solve. How has his position changed?

Bilboe

Reading over the quotation from Denton above, and based on my memory of his first book, I've become rather curious about Denton. He seems to be quite a maverick, which I like. He doesn't seem to be disposed to either Darwinian evolution or to ID. I wonder if he's some sort of Aristotelian, believing in an Unmoved Mover, who doesn't interfere with the universe, but "motivates" it to seek out its ultimate perfection. So evolution would be natural but directed. I wish I could talk to the guy. I wonder if I'm anywhere close to guessing correctly.

Richiyaado

Bilbo(e)! Where ya been?

I think Denton formerly denied macroevolution, but now accepts it. You can read more about it <a href="http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho29.htm" target="_blank">here</a>.

While I agree that Johnson based much of his own 'thinking' on Denton's first book, Denton himself has abandoned anti-Darwinism and moved toward a 'fine-tuning' argument. The irony here is that Johnson doesn't like fine-tuning any more than he does 'theistic' evolution. So his principle inspiration is now to be counted among the 'enemy' (I guess).

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Actually, though, that statement IS valid. Which is why Darwin's supposed conversion (false, but not the point) is worthless as evidence. Statements pass or fail on their own merits--regardless if someone changes their mind.

He still was wrong the first time, (and still is) so don't be calling me a cretinist.

Bilboe

Rich,

Hi! I've lost my sense of humo(u)r, and don't remember where I put it, so I've become rather too serio(u)s, lately. It wasn't really clear from Denton's first book whether he rejected macroevolution. He did, however, reject the Darwinian form of it. I'm guessing that he thinks saltation is a natural thing, and happens in evolution just as it happens in electrons. And since he liked Aristotle so much in his first book, and since he uses the term "directed evolution" so much in his second, I'm guessing he has some sort of Aristotelian direction in mind. Meanwhile, I hope to get over this serio(u)s phase, soon, and get back to what really matters in life -- humo(u)r.

pangloss

Not when viewd in the context of Denton's first book. As you say, he was wrong - indeed, his bit on phylogeny was laughable. So if he changed his mind - perhaps realized the stupidity of some of his earlier claims - that doesn't mean that his original work had merit.

Bilboe

It's occurred to me that we aren't talking about a dead author, here. Somebody should get in touch with this guy and find out if he thinks he's changed his mind, and if he thinks he was wrong about anything. I wonder if DI might know how ...

theyeti

The DI still has him listed as one of their <a href="http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?command=submitSearchQuery&searchType=ex act&orderBy=date&orderDir=DESC&searchBy=author&que ry=Michael%20Denton&program=CRSC" target="_blank">senior fellows</a>. However, when you click on the "Articles by Michael Denton" link, it turns up nothing. So I don't know if he's still a fellow, or if they just haven't updated their web page in awhile. Denton's continued inclusion in the DI seems pretty weird given that he's repudiated the views that got him invited in the first place. But he might still share their political goals, in which case they're likely to keep him on no matter what; afterall, they really need to keep any scientist that they can get a hold of. Besides, there's already a ridiculous lack of consistency in their fellows' scientific views, so it wouldn't be out of character for them to retain him...

theyeti