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.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DLL who wrote (16103)	5/21/1998 8:20:00 PM
From: DLL	Respond to of 39621

Darwinists Squirm Under Spotlight Interview with Phillip E. Johnson This article is reprinted from an interview with Citizen Magazine, January 1992. What are some of the intellectual difficulties? Can you give an example? The most important is the fossil problem, because this is a direct record of the history of life on earth. If Darwinism were true, you would expect the fossil evidence to contain many examples of Darwinian evolution. You would expect to see fossils that really couldn't be understood except as transitions between one kind of organism and another. You would also expect to see some of the common ancestors that gave birth to different groups like fish and reptiles. You wouldn't expect to find them in every case, of course. It's perfectly reasonable to say that a great deal of the fossil evidence has been lost. But you would continually be finding examples of things that fit well with the theory. In reality, the fossil record is something that Darwinists have had to explain away, because what it shows is the sudden appearance of organisms that exhibit no trace of step-by-step development from earlier forms. And it shows that once these organisms exist, they remain fundamentally unchanged, despite the passage of millions of years-and despite climatic and environmental changes that should have produced enormous Darwinian evolution if the theory were true. In short, if evolution is the gradual, step-by-step transformation of one kind of thing into another, the outstanding feature of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution.

To: DLL who wrote (16103)	5/21/1998 8:26:00 PM
From: DLL	Respond to of 39621

Darwinists Squirm Under Spotlight Interview with Phillip E. Johnson This article is reprinted from an interview with Citizen Magazine, January 1992. If Darwinism has been so thoroughly disconfirmed, why do so many scientists say it's a fact? There are several factors that explain this. One is that Darwinism is fundamentally a religious position, not a scientific position. The project of Darwinism is to explain the world and all its life forms in a way that excludes any role for a creator. And that project is sacred to the scientific naturalist-to the person who denies that God can in any way influence natural events. It's also an unfortunate fact in the history of science that scientists will stick to a theory which is untrue until they get an acceptable alternative theory-which to a Darwinist means a strictly naturalistic theory. So for them, the question is not whether Darwinism is true. The question is whether there is a better theory that's philosophically acceptable. Any suggestion that Darwinism is false, and that we should admit our ignorance about the origin of complex life-forms, is simply unacceptable. In their eyes, Darwinism is the best naturalistic theory, and therefore effectively true. The argument that it's false can't even be heard.

To: DLL who wrote (16103)	5/21/1998 8:34:00 PM
From: DLL	Respond to of 39621

Darwinists Squirm Under Spotlight Interview with Phillip E. Johnson This article is reprinted from an interview with Citizen Magazine, January 1992. Across the country, there has been a growing trend toward teaching evolution as a fact-especially in California, your own state. What does this say about science education in America? This is an attempt to establish a religious position as orthodox throughout the educational establishment, and thus throughout the society. It's gone very far. The position is what I call "scientific naturalism." The scientific organizations, for example, tell us that if we wish to maintain our country's economic status and cope with environmental problems, we must give everyone a scientific outlook. But the "scientific outlook" they have in mind is one which, by definition, excludes God from any role in the world, from the Big Bang to the present. So this is fundamentally a religious position-a fundamentalist position, if you like--and it's being taught in the schools as a fact when it isn't even a good theory.

To: DLL who wrote (16103)	5/21/1998 8:47:00 PM
From: DLL	Respond to of 39621

The Making of a Revolution Tim Stafford Christianity Today, Volume 41, Number 14, December 8, 1997 In reality, Johnson says, naturalism undermines reason. "Richard Rorty says, 'Darwinism means there is no objective rationality. All we know is what's good for us.' The obvious conclusion from that is, believe whatever you want to believe." Darwinian evolution says that the brain evolved strictly as a means to one species' survival. Why should it be capable of knowing truth? By evolutionary standards, a more postmodern version of truth would be likely truth as a means of hegemony, a way for one group to outsurvive another. "Deconstruction," Johnson says, "is the natural child of scientific rationalism and the materialist world-view."