Re: Question for ID propopents--the demarcation question

From: Preston Garrison <>
Date: Wed Nov 02 2005 - 20:09:57 EST

>George wrote:
> >>>When exactly was this moment of opportunity for TEs to ally
>themselves with ID? & given the fact that the ID movement was itself
>identified from its start with Johnson's contempt for evolution,
>what could such an alliance have meant other than signing on their
>dotted line?
>"Don't you agree with us about the bankruptcy of materialism?" If we
>(TEs) didn't, we wouldn't be _theistic_ evolutionists. But the
>distinctive claim of ID is the effective bankruptcy of
>_methodological_ naturalism, & that claim is false. To pursue the
>metaphor, MN has some outstanding debts but it's far from bankrupt.
>George is absolutely correct. When I first got on the evolution
>reflector--Phil Johnsons old email list, I found the most incredible
>things being said about geology. My first post tried to address some
>of the silly things that had been said. Phil then privately emailed
>me and he was convinced that geology, like biology and the medical
>community (aids) was equally wrong in their conclusions. For those
>who don't know, Phil was very active in a movement to dismiss the
>conclusion that HIV causes AIDS. I think this is because Phil not
>only rejected MN but the scientific method itself. And that makes
>it hard for this TE to join such a movement.

Johnson has also scolded tumor biologists for thinking viral
oncogenes are relevant to human cancer. I don't have a reference for
this, but I'm sure I've seen it on the net somewhere. The common
denominator is that this position and the rejection of HIV as the
cause of AIDS are both positions taken by Peter Duesberg, the most
famous (and qualified) of the HIV deniers. I think it's likely that
Johnson just adopted these positions from Duesberg, although Duesberg
doesn't share Johnson's position on evolution.

Preston G.
Received on Wed Nov 2 20:14:18 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 02 2005 - 20:14:19 EST