theyeti

That would be the hate.

That would be the lie.

And that would be the hypocrisy.


Geo, I think you have a good grasp on where Johnson is coming from, but you should then understand why those of us in the scientific community find him so detestable. He's hardly the first of his kind, but he is clearly one of the most arrogant. He belittles the scientific community, bounces back and forth between calling us all stupid and calling us all part of some conspiracy, and then doesn't even pause to consider the irony of his own situation. It would be one thing if he had the faintest clue of what he was talking about, but he doesn't. I don't think I've ever seen anyone wield logical fallacies the way he does while simulaneously accusing other people of being illogical. And to add injury to insult, he spends most of his time whiping up the masses into a frenzy of mistrust and hatred aimed directly at ourselves, which in a culture that already has a dangerous lack of science understanding, poses a serious threat to our livelihoods. And for what? So that he can have his stupid culture war? So that he can give some sort of intellectual basis to religious intolerance? Fuck that guy. He's an asshole. You don't do yourself any favors by defending him.

theyeti

pz

It doesn't seem to be sinking in.

There are deluded, deranged people who believe all sorts of nonsense. They may make up stories about reptoids or magical psychic powers or mind control satellites. I'd call them crazy rather than liars.

Johnson is a professor of law. Perhaps he is insane and believes every word of what he says; however, that wouldn't change the fact that he is saying outright lies about me and many people I know, while simultaneously trying to claim a moral high ground. He's not lying about reptoids, he's lying about real people.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the people who forged the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' believed everything they wrote, and that they were serving a higher cause. That doesn't change the fact that they were corrupt, evil vermin...in the same way that Phil Johnson is.

GeoTheo

Do any of you think any of the talking heads on the Creation/ID side are honest?
If so who? The guy from Brown University, that wrote "Finding Darwin's God" thinks Henry Morris is sincere.
I agree that deliberately lying because you think you are doing it for a good cause is despicable, but I am not convinced Philip Johnson is doing that. I have read two of his books, pehaps I will check them out again now that I am no longer a creationist. Can you cite any specific examples?

theyeti

I think Kurt Wise and Paul Nelson are sincere, and they're both YECs. "Deluded" might be an accurate description, but neither is stupid nor willing to lie knowingly. I've also known plenty of IDists who I would say are sincere, but that wouldn't include any of the prominent ones save Nelson. Behe and Dembski are pretty iffy. Wells and Johnson are pure slime. What's true of all of these people is that they have a cultural mission to support, and to me that's insincere since I don't think any honest person can think that science supports that mission. In other words, they're happy with the ends justifying the means. However, not all IDists support the cultural mission. Just the ones you tend to hear about.

You're talking about Ken Miller. If Miller says that Morris is sincere, then maybe he knows better than I. I've never thought so, but then again Morris is best known through the books he wrote a long time ago. The books are riddled with errors and have been thoroughly discredited, so anyone who uses their arguments can be fairly said to be either insincere or ignorant. Duane Gish is clearly a liar though. So is Ham. And Baugh. And Hovind. And...

Read this:

<a href="http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/johnson.html" target="_blank">The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth?</a>

theyeti

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: theyeti ]</p>

Albion

Geo - try this one too, it's written by a Christian.

<a href="http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/PhilJohnson.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/PhilJohnson.htm</a>

He's also pointing out where Johnson has been economical with the truth in his attempts to present scientific data in the most ID-favourable light. And he's pretty upset, as a scientist and a Christian, with Johnson's sweeping statements about the motives of Christian scientists and theologians who won't get behind his programme.

Principia

Geo, you may be right that P. Johnson may not believe that he is deliberately lying per se, and consequently, we should give him some benefit of the doubt. However, that standard is, I think, a tad too low for filtering out those with insidious political agenda who would abuse their positions of authority to promote unjustifiable ends. Personally, I draw the line, when anyone:

a) first announces his credentials to establish credibility for a topic that he has no business professing any authority;

b) then uses that ill-gotten authority to create a political/cultural movement/revolution that receives no feedback from individuals who are potential victims (in this case any people ranging from academic students to professional scientists);

c) then perpetuates the movement by disseminating misinformation in the form of popular media, by actively defending such falsehoods from those who by any stretch of the imagination is more knowledgeable than he is in the topic, and then by promoting caricatures of members of the opposition.

In my book, such a person as PJ deserves no respect from me. The rest, Geo, is just political rhetoric. Let me ask you, though: what would you say to PJ, yourself?

I recommend the article that I have already quoted in the NPR thread:
<a href="http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/15.5docs/15-5pg40.html" target="_blank">http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/15.5docs/15-5pg40.html</a>

Let me know what you think.

Bubba

Geo-I think Principia, pz, theyeti etc. are right about Johnson. My question (admitedly sightly off topic) is about Behe. Behe very much gives the impression of being a legitimate scientist who is interested in actual research and who also believes in common descent. I have to ask about what people here think about his intellectual honesty and why they think it. The reason I say this is that he wrote a glowing reccomendation for Wells book, which is about the least scholorly or accurate book about evolution that I've read. Also, Wells, Johnson, Dembski, etc. don't seem to belive in common descent so Behe would seem to be the odd man out at DI.

Comments, anyone?

Also, why aren't more people in the mainstream scientific commmunity doing more to confront ID and guys like Wells and Dembski?

Bubba <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Bubba ]</p>

pz

We do. But the engagement is limited because 1) we'd rather not give crackpots a soapbox, and 2) the crackpots avoid scientific confrontations.

Although...I just got a copy of Jeff Shallit's review of _No Free Lunch_, published in BioSystems 66:93-99. If you'd like to read a no-holds barred evisceration of Dembski, look it up. It's simply lovely.

KC

All the more reason for him to avoid talk shows.

Cheers,

KC

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: KCdgw ]</p>

GreggLD1

It's actually very difficult for me to refrain from calling this sort of behavior "evil." At the very least, it's dirty and unethical.

What is it that the Apostle Paul said? In claiming that nature revealed the existence and glory of God, he said, "Therefore they are without excuse." That's what it is with Philip Johnson; he is without excuse. He's an intelligent and perceptive man; there's simply no way, after being exposed to the facts about evolution for all these years, that he could not be aware of the deep flaws in his arguments (not that he probably wasn't aware of them to begin with, but I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt). Yet he has not retracted a single one, and he continues to push his agenda as zealously as ever.

I agree; he does not deserve any respect.

Gregg