From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Johnson Part 1 of 3
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992
Date: 15 Sep 92  11:25:16

JUDGING A SELF-APPOINTED IMPEACHER
 
An introduction to Phillip E. Johnson's response to Stephen Jay
Gould's book review of "Darwin on Trial"
 
By David N. Menton
 
     It has long been understood that one dares to criticize
Darwinian dogma at ones own risk.  Even as early as 1879, the
famous Lamarkian, Samuel Butler wrote in his note book:
 
     I attacked the foundations of morality in "Erewhon,"
     and nobody cared two straws, I tore open the wounds of
     my Redeemer as he hung upon the Cross in "The Fair
     Haven," and people rather liked it.  But when I
     attacked Mr. Darwin they were up in arms in a moment.
     (Samuel Butler, 1879, "Evolution Old and New" p 54)
     
In a book review in the July 1992 issue of "Scientific American"
entitled "Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge," self appointed
impeacher Stephen Jay Gould is "up in arms" to say the least.
Clearly, no one can publicly criticize the logic or scientific
validity of Darwinian dogma without being subject to impeachment
by Gould - not even Dr. Phillip E. Johnson, Professor of Law at
the University of California at Berkeley and former legal aid to
Chief Justice Earl Warren.  Professor Johnson's book "Darwin on
Trial" has received widespread public interest and media
attention but Gould assures us that this "is certainly no measure
of the books merit."  Calling upon God's Word (Proverbs 11:29),
and the words of Abraham Lincoln ("Darwin's soulmate"!!!) for
moral support, Gould, a well known Marxist and atheist, severely
berates Johnson for daring to suggest that man may actually have
been created by a sovereign Creator.
     Gould tells us that Johnson has "taken the low road in
writing a very bad book," indeed, he insists that "it hardly
deserves to be called a book at all."  Gould derisively dismisses
Johnson's book as "at best, a long magazine article promoted to
hard covers" - strange criticism from a man who has himself
published several books which are in fact compilations of his
magazine articles!  Gould concludes that "Darwin on Trial is
"scarcely more than an acrid little puff" that really isn't good
enough to merit "worrisome retorts" then gives us three full
pages of his acrid and worrisome retorts.
     Lest anyone think that Johnson is a bit over sensitive in
his claim that the review of his book by Gould is really an
"attack piece," the review should be read in it's entirety in
Scientific American.  To give the flavor of the "review," I
include the following partial list of Gould's invectives against
Johnson and his book:
 
     clumsy, careless - repetitious - abysmally written -
     fails utterly - abstract argument with no weighing of
     evidence - false use of synecdoche -.tilts at rotted
     windmills - grandiose claims - badly argued - based on
     false criteria - misconstrues the basic principles of
     science - does not grasp the purpose and logic of the
     evolutionary argument - fails to present cogent
     arguments in his own brief - development of his case is
     fatally marred - full of errors - density of error is
     so high I must question wider competence - inadequacy
     in his own realm of expertise - performs abysmally in
     the lawyer's domain of the art of argument - false and
     unkind accusation - unfair discourse - unjustly
     castigates.
 
     It is understandable that Johnson was a bit miffed by his
unjust castigation by Gould and requested an opportunity to
respond.  The following is a transcript of a letter Dr. Johnson
sent to Jonathan  Piel, Editor of "Scientific American" magazine:
 
     Dear Mr. Piel:
          I have just received the July issue of Scientific
     American with the review of my book "Darwin on trial"
     by Stephen Jay Gould.  This review is what is known as
     an "attack piece" - an all-out attempt to discredit the
     author rather than to come to grips with the genuine
     intellectual issues raised by the book.  I am
     considering various options about how to respond, and
     here is the one I like best:
          Would you make available an equivalent space for a
     reply essay by me?  If you agree to do this, I will
     consider that Scientific American has dealt fairly and
     responsibly with me on this issue.  I am sure you are
     aware that there is widespread feeling that some
     persons in the scientific establishment are trying to
     shut out dissent on this subject.  I hope that you also
     agree that covering dissidents with invective and
     denying them a right to reply is the antithesis of the
     scientific approach.  Allowing equivalent space for a
     response is the fair thing to do -- and it is also the
     scientific thing to do.
          I am confident my reply essay will contribute to
     intelligent discussion of the points in controversy.
     On the other hand, if I am as incompetent as Gould
     says, your readers are certainly capable of discovering
     that for themselves when they see the quality of my
     response.  I am not afraid of exposing myself to
     further criticism, and I hope you are not afraid to
     present your readers with both sides of the question.

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism