From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Johnson 4 of 3 (i miss-counted)
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992
Date: 15 Sep 92  11:31:20

the blind watchmaker thesis is not supported by the evidence --
i. e., that science does not know how life could have evolved to
its present complexity and diversity without the participation of
preexisting intelligence.  If Gould had a convincing answer to
that argument, you may be sure that he would have stated the
issues clearly and met the main line of reasoning head on.
     The review itself merits no further response, but what
requires explanation is the hostility.  What divides Gould and me
has little to do with scientific evidence and everything to do
with metaphysics.  Gould approaches the question of evolution
from the philosophical starting point of scientific naturalism,
which denies a priori that a non-material being such as God could
influence the course of nature.  From that standpoint the blind
watchmaker thesis is true in principle by definition.  Science
may not know all the details yet, but something very much like
Darwinian evolution simply has to be responsible for our
existence because there is no acceptable alternative.  If there
are gaps or defects in the existing theory, the appropriate
response is to supply additional naturalistic hypotheses.
Critics who disparage Darwinism without offering a naturalistic
alternative are seen as attacking science itself, probably in
order to impose a religious straitjacket upon science and
society.  One does not reason with such persons; one employs any
means at hand to discourage them.
     But maybe Darwinism really is false -- in principle, and not
just in detail.  Maybe mindless material processes can't create
information-rich biological systems.  That is a real possibility,
no matter how offensive it is to scientific naturalists.  How do
Darwinists know that the blind watchmaker created the animal
phyla, for example, since the process can't be demonstrated and
all the historical evidence is missing?  Darwinists  may have the
cultural power to suppress questions like that for a time, but
eventually they are going to have to come to grips with them.
There are a lot of theists in America, not to mention the rest of
the world, and persons who promote naturalism in the name of
science will not forever be able to deny then a fair hearing.
     Scientific naturalists who think that Darwinism can be
defended by waging ideological war against the critics are free
to follow the example of Stephen Jay Gould.  Others may prefer to
take the path of Michael Ruse and the Darwinist scientists who
participated in an academic symposium on "Darwin on Trial" in
March, 1992, at Southern Methodist University.  These persons
learned that it is possible to debate metaphysical differences in
an academic setting in a fair-minded and mutually respectful
manner.  In the end, the entire scientific community will have to
acknowledge that honest discussion -- with assumptions identified
and terms precisely defined -- is the only method for resolving
disagreement that is consistent with the best traditions of
science itself.  When scientists defend a cherished doctrine by
obscuring the issues and intimidating the critics, it is a sure
sign that what they are defending isn't science.
 
=================================================================
Reprints of Johnson's response essay "The Religion of the Blind
Watchmaker" and research notes which were omitted to fit the
essay on a single page, are available on request.  Also available
at reasonable cost are the following:
 
     Two video tapes of lectures by Dr. Johnson:
        "Darwinism on Trial"
        "Behind the Critique"
     The printed text of his lecture:
        "Evolution & Theistic Naturalism"
     A packet of 20 selected reviews of "Darwin on Trial."
 
Address inquiries to:
 
     C.S. Lewis Fellowship
     P.O. Box 9000
     Holiday, FL 34690-9000

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism