A few points in response;
1. I think most all of us will grant that "Johnson's lack of scientific
training is evident"; but Lamoureux not only pointed this out but showed
that wherever Johnson tried to muster a scientific argument he failed to
make his case. We can get specific about any particular case.
2. Lamoureux thoroughly discredited the false dichotomy Johnson tries to run
between theism and the scientific hypothesis of common descent or descent
with modification. This has been done so often that it is remarkable that
Lamoureux could do it with such refreshing vigor. ( The thought that any
attack on "neo-darwinism" is a argument for the Discovery Institute version
of "design" is, as they say here in LA, "soooo last week". In particular,
the investigation of how information emerges is cutting edge science and is
getting more interesting all the time.
3. Lamoureux's plaintif reference to his experience of God's intervention in
his own life should offer a conclusive refutation of Johnson's claim that
those who "relegate" God to the status of a creator who does not, as Johnson
would have it "leave his finger prints all over the evidence", somehow leave
God nothing to do.
Whether you agree with any of the above or not, I heartily recommend this
book once again.
"Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins"
Johnson, Lamoureux, (eds.) Regent College Publishing, 1999
From: Bill Payne
Sent: 4/21/2001 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: Darwinism Defeated
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 07:37:01 -0700 "Hofmann, Jim"
> Note that there is a (big) ? after "Darwinism" in the title. I think
> Lamoureux completely leveled Johnson in this exchange.
I agree that Johnson's lack of scientific training is evident, but
disagree that Lamoureux leveled Johnson. Johnson's critique of the
"central claim of modern neo-Darwinism" - "the blind watchmaker thesis",
remains unanswered, as can be seen in the chapter of _Darwinism
Defeated?_ by Rikki Watts: "On the other hand, what if he [Johnson] is
right and the origin of information is precisely that boundary condition
(or event horizon) at which methodological naturalism breaks down?" (p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 22 2001 - 01:42:40 EDT