Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (46287)	2/10/2014 12:21:07 AM
From: 2MAR$	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Johnson destroys his credibility right from the start, almost a total kook attempting to pose that he has no interest in any creationist pov. Such blatant duplicity & any claim of impartiality flew out the window, natural method in science (naturalism) forges ahead, this botched up attempt found a lawyer out of his element, trying to preach to a choir. Dr Eugenie Scott, opened him up, easily exposing him with the deftness of a micro surgeon, back to the drawing board, when lawyers have to champion your cause, you are sunk. Especially one as confused as this one is... Phillip Johnson's book book contains "...no weighing of evidence, no careful reading of literature on all sides, no full citation of sources (the book does not even contain a bibliography) and occasional use of scientific literature only to score rhetorical points It would take a very long essay to criticize all or even most of Johnson’s scientific errors. Many are recycled from earlier, long since refuted critiques of evolution presented by "scientific" creationists. As in creationist literature, we find the familiar "gaps in the fossil record", "natural selection is a tautology", "there are no transitional fossils", "mutations are harmful", "natural selection is not creative", "microevolution does not explain macroevolution", "natural selection only produces variation within the 'kind'", and "proof" of special creation by demonstrations of structural complexity such as the vertebrate eye and strands of DNA, as well as many other old saws. Like many conservative Christians, Johnson is concerned with the implications of evolution. Although he states in his book that theistic evolution (evolution that is God-directed) is possible, he doubts it. He is not a young-earth creationist, and in fact, is almost contemptuous of their point of view. He accepts that the earth is old, but rejects evolution, thus he is perhaps describable as an old-earth creationist. His concern with evolution is primarily religious: if evolution by natural selection (Darwinism) really happened, then it is not possible for life to have purpose and for the universe and Earth to have been designed by an omnipotent, personal God. He feels that life would have no meaning, and moral and ethical systems would have no foundation. Thus his goal in Darwin on Trial is to demonstrate that Darwinian natural selection is impossible; therefore evolution didn't take place; therefore his theological views are preserved. He stresses that Darwinism is inherently an atheistic, naturalistic philosophy.