Joined: Jan. 2006
|Quote (blipey @ Oct. 30 2007,13:42)
|Shouldn't the idiots be trumpeting this appearance by an ID luminary on TV?
My favorite part of the interview was the way that Johnson answered every question by starting with the following thought, "If Darwinism can't..."
Especially funny after he was asked what the positive evidence for ID was.
Let's give Phil's nonanswer in full:
|Q: What is the evidence for intelligent design?
Always wanted the answer to that question? Wait for it....
|Johnson: What if the Darwinian mechanism doesn't have the creative power claimed for it? Then something else has to be true.
Ah! One of the more crass statements of "Darwinism has problems, THAT'S my proof of intelligent design!" I've heard in a LONG time.
| It's two sides of the same coin as I look at it, and that's why I've always devoted my energies to making the skeptical case about Darwinism. Others have evidence of a positive nature—irreducible complexity and complex specified information are part of that.
To understand the positive evidence I think we have to realize that Darwin was writing a long time ago.
(The writers of Genesis were writing MUCH LONGER AGO, but nevermind.)
|He didn't understand anything about complex specified information or the irreducible complexity of the cell. In Darwin's day it was thought that cells were simply globs of a kind of jelly-like substance, a protoplasm. So it didn't seem to be very difficult to imagine how you could get a blob of some substance like mud at the bottom of a prehistoric pond, lake, or ocean. But since Darwin's day an enormous amount has been learned about the cell.
This is why my colleague Michael Behe's famous book is titled Darwin's Black Box. The point there is that to Darwin the cell was a black box. It did something, but you didn't know how it did it. So the cell was a black box in Darwin's day, and now it's been opened. Thanks to the work of biochemists and molecular biologists since that time, we know that the cell is so enormously complex that it makes a spaceship or a supercomputer look rather low-tech in comparison. So I think the cell is perhaps the biggest hurdle of all for the Darwinists to get over. How do you get the first cell?
It's not just that if they get the cell then everything else will be easy. But it was thought in Darwin's day that the cell was no problem at all. The only problems came after that. How do you get from cells to complex animals and then to apes, and from apes to human beings? That's the story that he told. Now, I don't think that story will hold water when you look for proof rather than just accept it as an inevitable, logical consequence of a naturalistic philosophy that you're starting out with.
"I find Darwinism implausible, therefore I win, and I don't have to offer you any proof of my position".
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus