Up@dawn 2.0

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

The most respectable academic critic of evolution?

Philip E. Johnson has been described in Steven Weinberg’s book Dreams of a Final Theory as “the most respectable academic critic of evolution.” Johnson is not so sure this is a compliment.

In his book, Darwin on Trial, he asks, in academia where criticism of established opinion is admired, why is the criticism of evolution so unusual. He professes not to take sides in the Bible-science debate but strives to understand what the unbiased scientific investigation tells us about how the vast and complex organs of animal and plants came into existence. He understands the concept of breeding groups isolated on an island would differ from their counterparts on the mainland due to inbreeding, mutation, and selection. These changes come about to a pre-existing life and are understandable, but the notion that they came into existence by this process is debatable. The question he raises is how much do we really know about this process called evolution.

Johnson’s argument is that we know a great deal less than what is claimed. Darwin’s theory points out the accumulation of adaptive micro-mutations by natural selection is responsible for biological complexity, but this assumption has never been demonstrated and the fossil evidence is inconsistent with the claims. With this being said, Johnson summarizes by saying, “in brief, what makes me a critic of evolution is that I distinguish between naturalistic philosophy and empirical science, and oppose the former when it becomes cloaked in the authority of the latter.”


I agree with Johnson that so much about evolution is unknown and we need to learn more and investigate more options, which leads to one of my discussion questions for this week. Should intelligent design be taught in public schools along with evolution?

2 comments:

  1. Johnson points out early in his book that he is not a scientist, but a lawyer and that he will focus on arguments and not on science and then proceeds through out parts of the book to render what appears to be a scientist viewpoint. It would have been more meaningful for me if he had engaged individuals who had years of doing scientific research including paleontology and not just a few who might agree with his view. He could have then made reasonable arguments on their perspective and allowed them to field and respond to his proposals. Of course that would have made for probably a less controversial book and not as likely to be one that would have sold well to his followers. Johnson states unequivocally that he believes in God and that is what Intelligent Design is and no matter how it will be described in the future, it is still religion and as such cannot be taught in public schools since it shows a preference for one form of religion - Judeo-Christian. It is doubtful that Johnson would be comfortable with Native American religion being taught in public schools, although that religion predates any European religion and may be closer to Nature's God that Jefferson referred to in the Declaration of Independence. It is also noteworthy that the word "God" is not mentioned anywhere in the original Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  2. We may know less about evolution than some of its more ardent enthusiasts imply, but we know a great deal more about it than we know about any conceivable alternative account of origins... and our knowledge of evolution is growing palpably.

    An Intelligent Designer per se would definitely not necessarily be a God, if by God we mean a maximally powerful, knowledgaable, AND moral being. But if we just mean a God of the Gaps, a name for all we have yet to comprehend, then we've downgraded our concept of God considerably. He/it may be too small and local.

    I don't think Johnson is evolution's most percipient critic. Those tend to be evolutionists themselves. That's how we know the theory is solid and getting better: internal criticism.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.