"Look at these many statements by Phillip Johnson, a professor of law at Berkeley."
OK. Let's take a look.
First sentence.
"Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives."
Well, since it is methodical naturalism and not philosophical naturalism that scientists use, do we really need to go further? He cannot even get his first premise correct.
Maybe there are a few other biggies.
"If God created the first organism, then how do we know he didn't do the same thing to produce all those animal groups that appear so suddenly in the Cambrian rocks?"
I guess he is hoping that no one bothers to check what is meant by "animal groups." Since this means phyla in this context, his point is greatly reduced if someone checks up on him. And since it means phyla, it must be pointed out that that there were no birds, no mammal, no reptiles and no amphibians in the Cambrian. There are no grasses, no flowering plants, no trees and in fact no seed bearing plants of any kind. There may have been some early fishes, but no sharks, no lobefinned fish.
Is this supposed to be a deliberate misdirection in his choice of words?
"Darwinists believe that the mutation-selection mechanism accomplishes wonders of creativity not because the wonders can be demonstrated, but because they cannot think of a more plausible explanation for the existence of wonders that does not involve an unacceptable creator, i.e., a being or force outside the world of nature."
Flat out wrong.
There have been many documanted cases of mutation and selection bringing about novel features. In addition, as has been demonstrated on other threads, the genome bears many features that trace the history of such innovations.
"If scientists had actually observed natural selection creating new organs, or had seen a step-by-step process of fundamental change consistently recorded in the fossil record, such observations could readily be interpreted as evidence of God’s use of secondary causes to create. But Darwinian scientists have not observed anything like that."
Flat out wrong.
There are many such instances documented.
"When you ask a Darwinist, 'What evidence do you have for your mechanism that random variation and natural selection can actually do any creating?' the Darwinist will say, 'Well, tell me what God looks like, Why did he do this or that? I want you to show me God doing the creating because if you can't show me that, we can get rid of God or the creator and what's left is Darwinism, so it's got to be true.' "
Hahahahahahaha.
Yes, please try that. Ask that question to a biology professor or even to those on this forum and see if you get that answer. This is a riot.
When similar questions are asked, I think most people who accept evolution and who are reasonably knowledgable will enter into a recitation of some of the facts.
I guess we now see why there is the fallacy of an appeal to authority. Johnson may know the law well, but it is a fallacy to appeal to his opinions on either the facts or the philosophy of science. But lawyers sure are slick.
OK. Let's take a look.
First sentence.
"Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives."
Well, since it is methodical naturalism and not philosophical naturalism that scientists use, do we really need to go further? He cannot even get his first premise correct.
Maybe there are a few other biggies.
"If God created the first organism, then how do we know he didn't do the same thing to produce all those animal groups that appear so suddenly in the Cambrian rocks?"
I guess he is hoping that no one bothers to check what is meant by "animal groups." Since this means phyla in this context, his point is greatly reduced if someone checks up on him. And since it means phyla, it must be pointed out that that there were no birds, no mammal, no reptiles and no amphibians in the Cambrian. There are no grasses, no flowering plants, no trees and in fact no seed bearing plants of any kind. There may have been some early fishes, but no sharks, no lobefinned fish.
Is this supposed to be a deliberate misdirection in his choice of words?
"Darwinists believe that the mutation-selection mechanism accomplishes wonders of creativity not because the wonders can be demonstrated, but because they cannot think of a more plausible explanation for the existence of wonders that does not involve an unacceptable creator, i.e., a being or force outside the world of nature."
Flat out wrong.
There have been many documanted cases of mutation and selection bringing about novel features. In addition, as has been demonstrated on other threads, the genome bears many features that trace the history of such innovations.
"If scientists had actually observed natural selection creating new organs, or had seen a step-by-step process of fundamental change consistently recorded in the fossil record, such observations could readily be interpreted as evidence of God’s use of secondary causes to create. But Darwinian scientists have not observed anything like that."
Flat out wrong.
There are many such instances documented.
"When you ask a Darwinist, 'What evidence do you have for your mechanism that random variation and natural selection can actually do any creating?' the Darwinist will say, 'Well, tell me what God looks like, Why did he do this or that? I want you to show me God doing the creating because if you can't show me that, we can get rid of God or the creator and what's left is Darwinism, so it's got to be true.' "
Hahahahahahaha.
Yes, please try that. Ask that question to a biology professor or even to those on this forum and see if you get that answer. This is a riot.
When similar questions are asked, I think most people who accept evolution and who are reasonably knowledgable will enter into a recitation of some of the facts.
I guess we now see why there is the fallacy of an appeal to authority. Johnson may know the law well, but it is a fallacy to appeal to his opinions on either the facts or the philosophy of science. But lawyers sure are slick.
