[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Intelligent Design
Peter T. Chattaway wrote (In referring to Intelligent Design)
>That's not science, though. In fact, they deliberately *avoid* science,
>by which I mean they avoid proposing specific scientific theories and
>testing them, because they want to build a broad, political coalition
>opposed to "naturalism". It's philosophy masquerading as science.
I would agree that Johnson approaches the broader subject of naturalism.
He often writes about how evolutionary thinking impacts all of society.
From the little I've read of Michael Behe he seems focused on the
scientific discussion. I have to finish reading "Darwin's Black Box."
I don't know if Behe, Johnson, or Dembski would say that they're trying to
build a "political coalition." I get the sense that they're trying to
engage the debate. When you use the words "political coalition" it comes
across as an attempt to discredit their motivations. If I recall
correctly, Behe is a Professor of Science.
I often get the sense that when someone outside a field critiques the
dominant ideas of a subject those within that field will try to write him
off by saying "he's not a scientist, what does he Know?" In Johnson's
case, as a Professor of law at Cal Berkley he seems qualified to weed
through people's arguments.
I can't speak for specific instances where he has been wrong. I'm sure
he's run into scientists that have been equally uncharitable when he's
found holes in their thinking. As a whole we do need to be more open to
having our ideas critiqued and poked at.
Thanks for the book suggestion from Regent Press. I will try to find it.
Bill Keith
--
Bill Keith, WSDP Radio, Plymouth-Canton Schools
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/
Follow-Ups: