Primordial Groove

Philip is coming to town here in Texas to give a speech on 'the fallacy of Darwinian Evolution.'

Does anyone know what this guy is about and what his angle is?

I might blow 8 bucks to see him and would like a little ammo going in.

tgamble

The Mistrial of Evolution
A review of Phillip E. Johnson's Darwin on Trial
Review by Terry M. Gray
http://www.asa3.org/gray/evolution_trial/dotreview.html


DARWIN ON TRIAL: A Review
by Eugenie C. Scott
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/res...5252685546.asp

My personal favorite

"Behe's comrade-in-arms, Phillip Johnson, seems, by comparison, past praying for. Johnson's commentary reveals that his opposition to Darwin is entirely ideological. His beef, it turns out, is not so much with Darwinism as with materialism. Indeed his whole view can be summed up in the following syllogism: Materialism is bad; Darwinism is a form of materialism; ergo, Darwinism is bad.

He tries to persuade you of the soundness of this logic by reminding you that Marxism and Freudianism--both materialist--are also bad. But this guilt by association maneuver is silly and the absurdity of Johnson's view can be seen by plugging any other species of materialist science into his syllogism: "Celestial mechanics is a form of materialism; ergo, celestial mechanics is bad." Is Johnson really willing to believe that--in the imminent collapse of materialism--mechanics will go the way of phrenology and we'll all happily return to the pre-materialist view that angels, by flapping their wings, propel the planets through their orbits? If not, why not? Why is it kosher to reject Darwinism on the grounds of materialist dogma, but not celestial mechanics? The answer is, I think, obvious. Darwinism hits closer to home. It concerns the origins of people, not the orbits of planets.

It's clear that Johnson longs for a return to some idyllic pre-materialist culture. But this is escapist nonsense, a cop-out. The fact is we live in a scientific age. To deny this--to wish it away by chanting "materialism"--is to live in a make-believe world. Johnson is of course welcome to reside in such a world, but we, his readers, are left with the slightly incongruous image of a man who, flatly denying half the world and the last four hundred years of history, lectures us on how things really are.

As for Johnson's treatment of my paper with Coyne on the genetics of adaptation, Coyne has said most of what needs saying. Behe, and now Johnson, have grossly exaggerated the "challenge" to Darwinism posed by our work. How the notion that adaptation involves larger-sized mutations than we thought pulls the rug out from under evolution is beyond me. Indeed Johnson misunderstands our claim, getting it all backwards. Coyne and I noted that population genetic theory shows that bigger mutations are the most likely to play a role in adaptation. But Johnson, pointing to our paper, concludes that, although big mutations happen, "they can't climb Mount Improbable again and again," i.e., they can't play a role in adaptation. This is precisely the opposite of our conclusion. Such misunderstandings don't inspire much confidence in Johnson's grasp of evolutionary theory. But this is subtle stuff compared to his assertion that I invoke "a naked hypothesis (Muller's Ratchet) against irreducible complexity." Since Johnson is viewed in some quarters as an expert on evolutionary matters, I feel somewhat obliged to point out that "Muller's ratchet"--though well-known and important--has nothing whatever to do with Muller's explanation of irreducible complexity. Muller had more than one idea in his life and Muller's ratchet refers to the accumulation of deleterious mutations on asexual chromosomes--a long ways from irreducible complexity. Drawing a conclusion here seems almost rude, but too much is at stake for polite silence: the fact is Johnson has little idea what he's talking about.

Last, I must comment on Johnson's astonishing claim that "in fields like paleontology, genetics, and embryology . . . the empirical evidence and the materialist project are going in opposite directions." I sincerely hope no reader is taken in by such nonsense. I work in a department filled with geneticists, embryologists, and paleontologists and not one of them yet has stopped me in the halls, pale and trembling, with revelations of data that undermine materialism. (You should ask yourself what such data would look like.) I'm afraid that, if Johnson is your guide to evolution, paleontology, genetics, or embryology, there's a good chance that you and the empirical evidence are going in opposite directions. "

http://bostonreview.mit.edu/br22.1/orr.html

You might ask him what he has against theistic evolutionists. Does he just want teachers to mention God when teaching evolution or what?

Dr.GH

Johnson was the major source for the Design Institute's Wedge Strategy

Albion

This is an interesting discussion of the tactics he uses. So is this. You'll probably see them all displayed in his talk. From reading his books, I'm seeing a pattern of sweet reasonableness at the beginning, gradually being replaced by evolution-equals-atheism-equals-evil as the books progress until by the end he's being very aggressive but somehow it's happened so gradually that unless you're watching out for it, you could be in danger of thinking that this stuff was the same sweet reason as he used at the start.

pz

There is no angle that can be dealt with rationally. Johnson's strategy is to argue that all scientists are biased by the philosophy of naturalism, and therefore they are all wrong. He will support this claim by lying.

My few exposures to Johnson have left me nauseous with disgust. He is among the most contemptible, dishonest, sleazy, slimy creationists around.

RufusAtticus

Sounds like a lawyer.

simian

It may be worth bringing to the audience's attention that this is the same phillip johnson who wrote a book claiming HIV does not cause AIDS. Seems to be on the same footing as him claiming naturalistic evolution does not happen. You will not get a straight answer out of him.

Simian

Primordial Groove

I appreciate yous taking the time to give me this wonderful information about Johnson. He sounds even nuttier than the advertisement makes him to be.

The town I live in is on the conservative side with a 'church on every block.' As such, a majority of the population will eat this up. If a Q and A session takes place at the end of his drivel, I think a reality check would be in order. I would hate to see his ideas going blindly before the school board.

Again, thank you.


Off to the links....

MrDarwin

There are a number of reviews of his book Darwin on Trial on amazon.com. Try reading through some of the negative reviews (I wrote one of the longer ones) to get an idea of the criticisms of his ideas.

Advocatus Diaboli

Now now! I resent that kind of lawyer bashing! It is rude to compare lawyers to creationists.