ID vid: Phillip Johnson on Darwinism
| December 3, 2011 | Posted by kairosfocus under Intelligent Design, Video |
ID thinker Phillip Johnson answers questions relating to Darwinism and underlying metaphysical and methodological naturalism:
embedded by Embedded Video
YouTube Direkt
Notice his summary from Gould etc: that in the intent of the main champions of “evolution,” material reality is reality, and science, properly, is limited to that circle of thought, so scientific reality is factual reality, and what is contrary to or outside of that circle of evolutionary materialism is imaginary.
Now, too, he quotes Gould: “science incorporates all of factual reality.” Is that a reasonable position to take, why or why not?
Ask, too, whether he is accurate in summarising an attitude of contempt that willfully conceals disputable prior philosophical commitments in dealing with lay policy makers (e.g. school boards)Â and the general public.
Is he right to hold that natural selection — due to the requisites of step by step functional intermediates — will be a conservative force allowing adaptations of body plans [i.e. within an island of function], but blocking traversal of genome space to novel body plans?
Why, or why not?
Let’s watch then think and discuss. END
6 Responses to ID vid: Phillip Johnson on Darwinism
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
With the falsification of local realism, by Alain Aspect and company with quantum entanglement, and with the finding of non-local, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement in molecular biology, (on a massive scale no less), Reductive materialism will NEVER be the answer for how life appeared on earth. The ’cause’ for quantum entanglement in molecular biology simply does not reside within material particles to generate in the first place, no matter how much atheistic materialists may protest to the contrary, or how much they may try to use obfuscation to get around this fact, or no matter how bright the light is under the streetlamp that the drunk is looking for his lost keys for. The keys simply are not under that streetlamp in the first place!!
further notes:
Verse and Music:
OT:
Music:
He is absolutely correct in his comments about the main stream scientists. ‘Evolution’ is based on assumptions, and conjecture. If read many of the papers written, it is all about if this can be shown correct, then this could happen. Then the paper goes on as though what they have just said is actual fact. When of course , that is only an assumption.
Without that kind of ‘science’ ‘evolution’ is not real. It is ‘The Greatest Snow Job on Earth’ a con.
If the ‘evolutionary ‘ scientists actually went back and cleared up these ‘if’ and ‘then’ statements, there would be no such thing as ‘evolution’.
So what does that make the scientists, that are saying ‘evolution’ is a fact? ” ”
Is that what science is supposed to be about? ‘Assumptions’.
OT:
DS:
All of this brings back to mind Johnson’s retort to Lewontin in First Things, Nov 1997:
Given the collection of five witnesses — three individual, two official — here on in the IOSE IntroSumm, it is looking more and more like we are indeed dealing with a priori, worldview level question begging imposition of materialism on science. Thus, destroying the ability of science to seek the unfettered, empirically anchored truth about our world, especially on matters of origins.
And in turn, this turns the now “standard” attempts to stigmatise citing the likes of Lewontin on this, into distractive, poisoned turnabout accusation rhetorical tactics in the teeth of a very, very serious problem with the integrity of science as an objective, truth-focussed rather than ideologically based cultural enterprise.
Serious indeed, and the pretence that by suggesting that Lewontin has been “quote-mined” [he has plainly not been misread] or the pretence that the a priorism exposed is not a widespread and deeply troubling problem, and the onward attempt to rhetorically skewer and personally attack those who point out the unwelcome truth here, now appear in a very saddening light.
Something is wrong with a keystone institution in our civilisation, and we had better face the fact and do something about it now, before it is too late.
GEM of TKI
The real problem is that , how do ‘evolutionary’ scientists, actually step back and re look at their ideas. It has been 150 years of declaring their stand. With thousands of articles and TV programs and trips to Mars. How can they say now, we were wrong. They would lose all creditably and would be a joke. ( they would lose ‘face’)
So they have to stay the course, whether that rut takes them over the cliff or not.
‘Evolution’ has always been a temporary idea anyway, because in the end, evidence rules.You can’t fool all the people all the time!
Many jumped on the Darwin band wagon and now don’t know how to get off.
DNA killed ‘evolution’ and the non creative start to life.