Re: Coment

Glenn Morton (
Tue, 25 Feb 1997 21:04:20 -0600

At 05:39 PM 2/25/97 -0500, John W. Burgeson wrote:

>Joel & I were both there; I heard something quite different, specifically,
>that within a year the debate over whether (or not) theistic
>science/intelligent design was a proper part of science would be settled.
>To suggest that within a year all theistic evolutionists would be
>"converted" seems to be an outrageous and wholly unbelievable claim;had he
>made this claim, I'd think someone might have called him down on it.


I think that Phil really might believe this. Note the hyperbole in the

"The Behe argument is as revolutionary for our time as was
Darwin's argument was for his. If true, it presages not just a
change in a scientific theory, but an overthrow of the worldview
that has dominated intellectual life ever since the triumph of
Darwinism, the metaphysical doctrine of scientific materialism or
naturalism. A lot is at stake, and not just for science."~Phillip
E. Johnson, "The Storyteller and the Scientist", First Things, Oct.
1996, p.47.

I do not think that Phil's sense of scientific history is that well
developed, but I do think that he thinks it is.


Foundation, Fall and Flood