Home » Intelligent Design, Video » ID vid: Phillip Johnson on Darwinism

ID vid: Phillip Johnson on Darwinism

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)  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

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

6 Responses to ID vid: Phillip Johnson on Darwinism

  1. 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!!

    Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US

    Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff – video (notes in description)
    http://vimeo.com/29895068

    further notes:

    Darwinism On Trial (Phillip E. Johnson) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwj9h9Zx6Mw

    Intelligent Design Debate Still Raging on Two Decades Later – November 2011
    Excerpt: “Descartes said ‘I think, therefore I am.’ My bet is that God replied, ‘I am, therefore think.’”
    http://www.christianpost.com/n.....ter-61945/

    Evolution Is Religion–Not Science by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
    Excerpt: Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality,,, Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
    Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse – Prominent Philosopher

    Verse and Music:

    2 Peter 1:16
    For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

    Kutless: Promise of a Lifetime – Live
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wgA93WQWKE

  2. OT:

    Earliest ‘creed’ evidence for Christianity – John Dickson – video (excerpt from “The Christ Files”)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YpLfTo1jzU

    Music:

    Third Day – Creed – Acoustic
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxEFqjH9G9Y

  3. 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’.

  4. OT:

    Does science explain God, or does God explain science? – This Week on Unbelievable Christian Radio
    http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable

  5. DS:

    All of this brings back to mind Johnson’s retort to Lewontin in First Things, Nov 1997:

    For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

    . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

    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

  6. 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.

Leave a Reply