To: All Msg #126, Feb0393 05:00PM Subject: Kibitzing on Colby/Johnson I have agreed to let

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: Usenet To: All Msg #126, Feb-03-93 05:00PM Subject: Kibitzing on Colby/Johnson From: brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov Message-ID: <1993Feb3.170020.1@si151a.llnl.gov> Newsgroups: talk.origins I have agreed to let Chris Colby be my surrogate in a debate with Phillip Johnson. I agreed with Mickey Rowe that it was worth a shot at limiting the T.O. Irregulars to a single champion to reduce the number of people Professor Johnson would have to respond to. I had hoped that this would entice Professor Johnson into actually living up to his spoken wish that there would be a fair and frank exchange of ideas on the subject of evolution. To be completely honest, I have yet to see Professor Johnson respond in any manner conducive to establishing dialog. Furthermore, I have seen him make a number of statements that strike me as out-and-out ludicrous. To avoid the temptation of responding to Johnson directly, I set up this side thread which is a meta-discussion of the Colby/Johnson debate. Hence the title of this post. I am neither requesting nor hoping for response from Professor Johnson. I am merely kibitzing (looking on, giving unwanted commentary and/or advice). For the length of Professor Johnson's visit to talk.origins I will be a Talk.Origins Kibitzer Extraordinaire, Really (or TOKER, for short). I invite anyone interested to join in. All you need to do is comment on the ongoing Colby/Johnson affair, and include the word "Kibitz" or "Kibitzing" in your subject line. Our goal is to provide (what we feel to be) insightful commentary, realizing full well that Professor Johnson is not expected to reply to us. (This offer is not valid for Chris Colby, even though he has yet to receive any meaningful answer from Phillip as of yet). Professor Johnson, if you need help setting up a kill file for the TOKER's, just send me e-mail and I would be more than happy to oblige. And now, for my first foray into kibitzing... I have received e-mail from Brad Knight, which he has given me permission to post. I think that the questions Brad brings up would make an excellent starting point for TOKER's. I would like to hear the comments/criticisms of others on this post. > Johnson really doesn't appear to have a good enough > scientific background to debate evolution with Chris on a scientific level. This is also my belief. If they ever got to science, I am confident that Chris would hand Phillip his head. It does raise the interesting question as to what Prof. Johnson's qualification are for the role of prosecutor against this branch of mainstream science, however. If Professor Johnson does not have the scientific background to even debate Chris Colby, what credence should we give to him as an expert witness as to what evolution says/implies. > I don't think he wants to debate the science of evolution either, even > though he may debate "around" it. And Chris really seems interested only in > the scientific aspect of the debate and appears to quickly become frustrated > with Johnson. I think Chris's apparent frustration is justified. Johnson doesn't only "debate 'around'" the science of evolution, he also applies many ad populum arguments that look good, but are nothing more than rhetorical tricks. For example, look at one of Johnson's recent posts were he provides a word count of his book versus Chris's FAQ wrt "cumulative selection". Now, this sounds like a pretty impressive argument, and for people who aren't following closely it would score big rhetorical points, but this reply in no way shape or form touches on Chris's core argument. Chris admits that he was sloppy in failing to make the distinction between "cumulative selection" and single "selection" events. Chris is completely correct in noting, however, that in _Darwin on Trial_, Phillip Johnson fails to consistently apply the phrase "cumulative selection" as needed. Johnsons repeatedly says "selection" where he should use "cumulative selection". In my reading of _Darwin on Trial_, this failure to clearly denote "cumulative selection" where it is appropriate is NOT mere sloppiness on Johnson's part. Professor Johnson leaves off the word "cumulative" when it is to his rhetorical advantage to do so. Chris has quite correctly noted that if one consistently separates "selection" from "cumulative selection" his FAQ will be considerably strengthened, whereas _Darwin on Trial_ would be weakened almost to the point of idiocy. You know the old saying, "When the facts are on your side argue the facts. When the law is on your side argue the law."? The problem here is that neither the law nor the facts are on Prof. Johnson's side, so he is attempting to divert the jury's (in this case the readers of talk.origins) attention from the case at hand. An admirable stunt if you can pull it off, but in the end it has nothing it adds nothing of worth to the merits of the discussion. > I'm wondering if Johnson doesn't really only have objections to a worldview > which he is calling "Darwinism" and if his objections aren't really > philosophical in nature rather than scientific. In this, I agree with you. Johnson seems to be concerned only with philosophical worldviews. One of the major problems is that Johnson is being exceedingly overbroad in his attack. So far, every statement he has made against evolution in this regard can equally well be made against any branch of the Natural Philosophy as developed within the framework of the the Western Empirical methodology lumped under the name of science. Of course the scientific discipline known as evolution partakes of the essence of "pragmatic atheism"*, but so does chemistry. Sure evolution is cultural imperialism, but reread the argument Johnson quotes about "scientific missionaries" and you will find that General Relatitivity is another example of the same. To attempt to indict evolution because it effects the religious beliefs of the Maori is ludicrous. No sane person would argue that we shouldn't teach heliocentrism because it was also believed to have a deleterious effect on religious beliefs (as is more than amply demonstrated by the reaction of the Christian community to the Copernican model). Johnson is waging a war against the empirical methodology known as science. That he at present is limiting his attacks to a small brush conflict against evolution in no way lessens the scope of Johnson's war. * By "pragmatic atheism" I mean the common belief that each of us has that God does not continually and capriciously act in the Universe. For example, if I could not find my car keys, I would think that I had misplaced them, or dropped them, or somesuch. I would NOT start nor end with the belief that God had miraculously zapped them out of existence (even though I personally would have to admit that this is a possibility). It is this exclusion of the divine from everyday affairs, that I have chosen to define as "pragmatic atheism". I feel that this is a quality inherent in the scientific method. > Does he want to attack evolution on philosophical grounds? Or attack merely > the atheism of some adherents to evolution or what? Since it is readily apparent that attacking an idea based on its misuse by adherents of the idea is cleary specious, it appears that Johnson is attacking evolution on philosophical grounds. Unfortunately, he either fails to grasp or refuses to elucidate that this attack is not merely limited to evolution but is instead an attack on the whole of the scientific method. I believe that the first of these is the correct intepretation, because most of the Theistic Anti-Evolutionists** I have met fail to grasp this point. The divide science into two camps, evolution/geology and everything else. They fail to realize that this is a false classification system. As an example of my last statement, take Bob Bales. He requires that evidence for an "Old Earth" meet much more exacting criteria than he would require for any other branch of science. Matthew Wiener's recently posted example dealing with the orbital period of Pluto strikes dead center at elucidating the absurd double standard Bob applies the fields of evolution and geology when compared with any other branch of science. For Bob, what's good enough for astrophysics, just won't cut it when it is applied to the age of the Earth question. ** For those of you who want to argue over the question of whether Johnson is a Creationist or not, go elsewhere. If Theistic Anti-Evolutionist is not an accurate description of Johnson's beliefs as demonstrated by what he has posted here, I will help Lionel eat his pointy little cap. >Brad >wbknight@ingr.com -- Matt Brinkman brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank