Syndicate
User login
Navigation
Philip E. Johnson says it better than I could
I've been blogging on the faith inherent in science. This is the equivalent to intellectual suicide in the eyes of some. It's called an error of equivocation. But I must strongly disagree. There are literal parallels between the faith of the theologian and the faith of many in the scientific community. A look at some of their statements reveals the fact.
I’m linking to an article by Philip Johnson that highlights this fact. Of immediate interest to my subject matter, Johnson comments/quotes:
That is the fear of Michael Ruse, author of Darwinism Defended. Ruse proclaims proudly that Darwinism reflects "a strong ideology," and "one to be proud of." According to Ruse, most contemporary Darwinians "show a strong liberal commitment" in both their politics and their sexual morality.(10) Advocates of creation, on the other hand, want to restore a "morality based on narrow Biblical lines" with respect to marriage and sexual behavior. Ironically Darwinism, which has at so often been associated with ideologies of racial superiority, eugenics, and unrestrained competition, is currently enlisted in the fight against that trinity of political incorrectness: racism, sexism, and homophobia. Ruse concludes his book with these stirring lines "Darwinism has a great past. Let us work to see that it has an even greater future."(11)
What? I thought the pursuit of science was to ensure a correct understanding of our reality. I thought its pursuit was the pursuit of truth. I thought the scientific method questioned theories in an effort to improve understanding, not protect them! Johnson poignantly observes:
Are those rules designed to protect a cherished doctrine from scientific criticism -- criticism that might, wittingly or unwittingly, give aid and comfort to persons who want to deprive the Darwinist establishment of its cultural authority? If physicists were to start to proclaim that belief in the Big Bang has had wonderful political and moral consequences, and we must all work to see that the Big Bang has a wonderful future, surely we would begin to wonder about their objectivity.
Go read the article. This is one of many points he makes in the evolution discussion, most pointing out that evolution starts with its conclusion and then evaluates evidence based on that conclusion. It’s a good read. I look forward to your comments.
Be blessed…
custom-pager custom-pager-1 custom-pager-blog
Technorati Tags:
Have you read this post
Have you read this post mormons?
We should discuss it at lunch this week.
Johnson info
Be careful taking Johnson at his word. I haven't had time to read the whole article you linked to yet, but I'm familiar with Johnson's scholarship. Here is some info about him:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/johnson.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/johnson.html
Oh, and although this has no direct bearing on the arguements he presents against evolution, his views on AIDS do reflect his academic rigor:
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/pjohnson.htm
Good to "see" you again...
I sincerely do appreciate the caution. I can't really speak to Mr. Johnson's motives, practices or ethics. But as to the specific quote I referred to, Philip Johnson debated Mr. Ruse on the quote and Mr. Ruse responded without taking issue with the way in which it was used.
In the beginning of the same exchange, Mr. Ruse referred to himself as a philosopher, which may be why he doesn't seem to be worried about his philosophies being questioned. Just as you take issue with creationists speaking as scientists, my issue in the blogs we debated over has been philosophers speaking as scientists. It seems that we yet again agree more than we disagree.
I have some points which I consider interesting that came out of the debate linked above. I'll be blogging on those points since they would make this reply too much for its intent. I appreciate your comments and always look forward to the next.
Be blessed...