Terry Gray wrote:
>Johnson has called my position "vacuous" and despises it because it makes
>no "threat" to the non-theist scientific community. As I've said many times
>before, the critique that we ought to be making of the atheistic scientific
>community is at the philosophical/theological level and not at the
>practical science level. On the fundamental philosophical/theological
>issues I agree whole-heartedly with Phil Johnson and eagerly desire to join
>ranks with him, but he does not welcome me, but rather actively opposes me
>(calls my views "vacuous", claims that I'm duped by the secular scientific
>establishment, accuses me of fearfully trembling before the secularly
>controlled granting agencies and scientific journal editors, etc.).
It is for this reason, that despite saying that I am sympathetic to the "ID
position" in some ways, I don't want to be identified with the current
movement. I don't like their rhetorical tactics, and until Johnson apologizes
and ceases from his persistant slanders against Christians in science who
disagree with on these matters, I don't want to be counted among them in any
Incidentally, a lawyer acquaintance offered me a little insight to Johnson's
approach in argument. Johnson's legal specialty is criminal law. It was
suggested that he regards a traditional non-evolutionary view as the defendant.
Applying the standard of proof in criminal law, "beyond all reasonable doubt,"
he regards evolution as eliminated if he can raise even a trace of doubt
about its claims.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 10 2001 - 03:15:37 EDT