| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
15 May 2005 07:48:58 AM |
| Object: |
In the News: Doubting Rationalist |
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------
'Intelligent Design' Proponent Phillip Johnson, and How He Came to Be
By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 15, 2005; Page D01
BERKELEY, Calif. "The Washington Post is not one of my biggest fans,
you know that."
Hello?
The Washington Post reporter has just walked out of a spray of
Pacific-borne rain into the living room of a modest bungalow west of
downtown. There's a shag rug, an inspirational painting or two and
Phillip Johnson, dressed in tan slacks and a sweater and sitting on a
couch. He pulls a dog-eared copy of a Post editorial out of his shirt
pocket and reads aloud:
"With their slick Web sites, pseudo-academic conferences and savvy
public relations, the proponents of 'intelligent design' -- a 'theory'
that challenges the validity of Darwinian evolution -- are far more
sophisticated than the creationists of yore. . . . They succeed by
casting doubt on evolution."
The 65-year-old Johnson swivels his formidable and balding head --
with that even more formidable brain inside -- and gazes over his
reading glasses at the reporter (who doesn't labor for the people who
write the editorials).
"I suppose you think creation is all about unguided material
processes, don't you? Well, I don't have the slightest trouble
accepting microevolution as the cause behind the adaptation of the
peppered moth and the growth of finches' beaks. But I don't see that
evolutionists have any cause for jubilation there.
"It doesn't tell you how the moths and birds and trees got there in
the first place. The human body is packed with marvels, eyes and lungs
and cells, and evolutionary gradualism can't account for that."
He's not big on small talk, this professor emeritus at the University
of California at Berkeley's law school.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051401222.html
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Doubting Rationalist |
15 May 2005 09:56:40 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
news:ijde81prn6ckki7pn9rd8uo5bluq8k2qs7@4ax.com:
He's not big on small talk, this professor emeritus at the University
of California at Berkeley's law school.
Sounds like a good lead-in for lawyer-related jokes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harlequin" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Doubting Rationalist |
15 May 2005 02:07:14 PM |
|
|
Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia <newb@newb.com> wrote in
news:Xns965751BE24DF6newbnewbcom@68.12.19.6:
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
news:ijde81prn6ckki7pn9rd8uo5bluq8k2qs7@4ax.com:
He's not big on small talk, this professor emeritus at the University
of California at Berkeley's law school.
Sounds like a good lead-in for lawyer-related jokes.
I think there is a restraining order against them.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet@sdc." with "harlequin2@"
"Scam artists all use the 'debate ploy': perpetual-motion-machine
inventors, magnet therapists, UFO conspiracy theorists, all of them.
They win just by being on the same platform."
- Bob Park
.
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Doubting Rationalist |
15 May 2005 04:49:55 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 May 2005 19:07:14 GMT, Harlequin <usenet@sdc.cox.net> wrote:
Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia <newb@newb.com> wrote in
news:Xns965751BE24DF6newbnewbcom@68.12.19.6:
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
news:ijde81prn6ckki7pn9rd8uo5bluq8k2qs7@4ax.com:
He's not big on small talk, this professor emeritus at the University
of California at Berkeley's law school.
Sounds like a good lead-in for lawyer-related jokes.
I think there is a restraining order against them.
No one expects the Spanish Restraining Order . . .
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Why are some research scientists now
using lawyers instead of rats?
There are some things even a rat won't do.
And besides, you can get attached to a rat.
- Robin Williams -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron O" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Doubting Rationalist |
15 May 2005 10:02:08 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------
'Intelligent Design' Proponent Phillip Johnson, and How He Came to Be
By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 15, 2005; Page D01
BERKELEY, Calif. "The Washington Post is not one of my biggest fans,
you know that."
Hello?
The Washington Post reporter has just walked out of a spray of
Pacific-borne rain into the living room of a modest bungalow west of
downtown. There's a shag rug, an inspirational painting or two and
Phillip Johnson, dressed in tan slacks and a sweater and sitting on a
couch. He pulls a dog-eared copy of a Post editorial out of his shirt
pocket and reads aloud:
"With their slick Web sites, pseudo-academic conferences and savvy
public relations, the proponents of 'intelligent design' -- a
'theory'
that challenges the validity of Darwinian evolution -- are far more
sophisticated than the creationists of yore. . . . They succeed by
casting doubt on evolution."
The 65-year-old Johnson swivels his formidable and balding head --
with that even more formidable brain inside -- and gazes over his
reading glasses at the reporter (who doesn't labor for the people who
write the editorials).
"I suppose you think creation is all about unguided material
processes, don't you? Well, I don't have the slightest trouble
accepting microevolution as the cause behind the adaptation of the
peppered moth and the growth of finches' beaks. But I don't see that
evolutionists have any cause for jubilation there.
"It doesn't tell you how the moths and birds and trees got there in
the first place. The human body is packed with marvels, eyes and
lungs
and cells, and evolutionary gradualism can't account for that."
He's not big on small talk, this professor emeritus at the University
of California at Berkeley's law school.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051401222.html
J. Spaceman
Doesn't any ID proponent find it distressing the number of rabid
anti-science/evolution types that are "born again" due to some personal
crisis? For Johnson it was a divorce, but we see other guys claiming
that it was drugs or whatever and that they found God. Suddenly they
couldn't do science or reason like they used to. It seems to be the
case whenever they put up some person that used to have rational views
as an example of someone that changed their minds.
About the only ones that aren't examples of it are guys like Austin
that just lied or Wells and they were always creationists, even before
they got their degrees.
There is some kind of old adage about there not being a bigger zealot
than a convert. It probably should join the Salem hypothesis in
relation to creationists that are willing to spread the gospel of
anti-science.
Is Johnson being rational?
He admits that biological evolution is the best natural explanation,
but he claims that, that doesn't matter. For some reason he doesn't
like the fact that his alternative can't be dealt with by science. He
claims that science just rejects it out of hand, but he must know by
now that science doesn't consider it for the simple reason that it
can't. If you can't study something, and you can't validate it in any
meaningful way, you can't do any science. It is just stupid that
someone like Johnson can't figure something like that out.
They have a quote by Kaufmann that ID asks valuable questions, but
valuable in what way? We can't evaluate the questions because the guys
asking the questions can't state them in a way that they can be
evaluated by science. It turns out that they aren't valuable
questions, because they can't lead anywhere at this time. They aren't
good for anything. Their only value is that they might be true. A lot
of things might be true, but the fact is until we can figure out some
way to test the notions and validate them or reject them they aren't
scientific questions.
Does God recreate the universe with false memories and historical
evidence intact every Sunday? That would be very valuable question if
the answer turned out to be that some god did do that, but it isn't a
valuable science question for obvious reasons.
Right now the only thing that ID has going for it is that it might be
true. This isn't very much comfort to the IDiots because the earth
could be flat, but some deity might be messing with our perceptions and
equipment to fool us into believing otherwise. The fact is that even
if ID might be true there isn't a single thing about current scientific
research that would have to change. It has no impact on science. Not
a single valid assumption for any experiment has to change. Whether it
is true or not, nothing has to change in the way science is done or
with the evaluation of the results. The IDers even admit that ID is
currently useless in science, but they claim that it doesn't have to be
useful at this time to be science. This is true, but the fact is that
ID isn't science and it is useless. It can't be evaluated by science
and it does science no good, so why teach it as science? The
scientific useless things are subjects like nuclear decay that might
not have had much use when they were first studied, but have resulted
in nuclear powerplants, and geologic dating methods that have proven to
be very useful. But, even though the guys studying these things didn't
know what to do with them, they could still do the science to determine
what it was that they were studying. In short, you can do science on
currently useless subjects. ID can't claim to be able to do the
science.
Ron Okimoto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev Dr Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Doubting Rationalist |
15 May 2005 06:36:56 PM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------
'Intelligent Design' Proponent Phillip Johnson, and How He Came to Be
By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 15, 2005; Page D01
BERKELEY, Calif. "The Washington Post is not one of my biggest fans,
you know that."
Hello?
The Washington Post reporter has just walked out of a spray of
Pacific-borne rain into the living room of a modest bungalow west of
downtown. There's a shag rug, an inspirational painting or two and
Phillip Johnson, dressed in tan slacks and a sweater and sitting on a
couch. He pulls a dog-eared copy of a Post editorial out of his shirt
pocket and reads aloud:
"With their slick Web sites, pseudo-academic conferences and savvy
public relations, the proponents of 'intelligent design' -- a
'theory'
that challenges the validity of Darwinian evolution -- are far more
sophisticated than the creationists of yore. . . . They succeed by
casting doubt on evolution."
The 65-year-old Johnson swivels his formidable and balding head --
with that even more formidable brain inside -- and gazes over his
reading glasses at the reporter (who doesn't labor for the people who
write the editorials).
"I suppose you think creation is all about unguided material
processes, don't you? Well, I don't have the slightest trouble
accepting microevolution as the cause behind the adaptation of the
peppered moth and the growth of finches' beaks. But I don't see that
evolutionists have any cause for jubilation there.
"It doesn't tell you how the moths and birds and trees got there in
the first place. The human body is packed with marvels, eyes and
lungs
and cells, and evolutionary gradualism can't account for that."
He's not big on small talk, this professor emeritus at the University
of California at Berkeley's law school.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051401222.html
Remember, this is the side that argues that it is all about SCIENCE and
has NO RELIGIOUS AIMS OR PURPOSE. None AT ALL.
(snicker) (giggle)
Like I've always said, let the nutters talk long enough, and they shoot
themselves in the head every single time.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation email list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
