Skip to comments.
Berkeley s Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson
Touchstone Magazine ^
| June 2002
| Touchstone interview
Posted on 05/29/2002 8:32:25 AM PDT by cornelis
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 561-577 next last
To: Gladwin
Also an interesting and thoughtful reply.
To: Gladwin
Or, musical ability could imply health - mental and physical. I believe I can clear that one up right here...
To: yendu bwam
Evolutionists believe, in a sense, that life has no purpose other than survival of the species.Hmmm... in a sloppy metaphorical sense, perhaps. Like how people will fall into the trap of referring to a species' evolutionary "strategy" to explain how a certain feature developed, as if the species decided to move in a certain direction.
But as an Objectivist I believe that "purpose", to a species with free will, is what the people make of it. Ultimately, for society's sake it's not how we came to be humans, with our free will, that's the important question. It's what will we do with our lives given that we do have free will.
223
posted on
05/29/2002 11:01:24 PM PDT
by
jennyp
To: jennyp
The ignorance that's involved, the indifference to the facts, is stunning. Anything that promotes the "Great Darwin" and the materialist understanding is uncritically received, unless it does something that?s politically incorrect. In short, my discovery that the reasoning in Darwinism is unscientific, illogical, and dishonest was tremendously important to me because it validates that "In the beginning was the Word" is really the correct starting point.
Worth repeating, don't you agree, jennyp? Did you notice the clear association with the Left?
Excellent Article Bump!
To: Askel5
A certified pleasure to encounter your high order of intellect and sensitivity here, Askel!
To: betty boop
ping . . . think you'll like this. Johnson has a world-class mind and he makes Sham Science Darwinism as obvious as a bad haircut.
To: BMCDA
On the other hand I don't know how many proponents of evolution argue against creationism because they don't want it to be true.
Three?
To: yendu bwam
But on the creation question, either God created the universe or God did not. I don't think you have any more proof on your side that he didn't than I do that he did.
The same could be said for whether or not a cat named Queen Maeve created the universe last Thursday. In fact, I could come up with any number of explanations for the origins of the universe that are currently unfalsifiable -- but that doesn't make any of them true. When a phenomena cannot be explained with existing knowledge, it's best to admit ignorance rather than make up explanations to fill in the gaps.
To: yendu bwam
As I've said before, in the abscence of knowledge I prefer to assume nothing. Yes, maybe it was a "God" who created the universe as to host life on a single blue-green planet in the far corner of a spiral galaxy, and perhaps this "God" specifically created it all for a single species descended from primates (or at the very least has the incredible appearance thereof), set out a specific set of rules that must be followed in order for the consciousness of those primate-descended creatures to spend eternity with "Him" after the death of the body and sent "His only Son" to die for the transgressions of those primate-descended creatures because there was no way for them to meet "His" standards on their own. Then again, maybe it was some entity who was bored one day and just created a life-supporting universe for the hell of it. This entity watched life appear and grow for a few eons, then got bored and left its universe running while it went off to do something more productive.
To: Phaedrus
Yep, definitely worth repeating. Either evolution is true or creation as described in Genesis is true. Perfect example of the false dilemma fallacy.
To: yendu bwam
Evolutionists believe, in a sense, that life has no purpose other than survival of the species.
Strawman. That "life has no purpose other than survival of the species" is not part of the theory of evolution or any scientific theory derived from it (in fact there is no scientific theory that deals with the "purpose" for life, science only deals with cause and effect) nor does every evolutionist believe this.
To: All
I spent a whole year on that, reading these dense 120-page law review articles, studying continental philosophy, and so on, and developed a love-hate relationship with neo-Marxism. I disliked the infantile leftist politics intensely. I did agree with their critique of liberal rationalism and legal scholarship?where the law professor and the judge say, "Well, you there, you have your passions and your prejudices and your interests, whereas I just peer into the Constitution and decide what justice is." It's what I called the sham neutrality of liberal rationalism. One of the leading examples of that was in the section on religion. In my article, my study guide of sham neutrality, I used as my textbook example the decision of the California Supreme Court on the government funding of abortions. The US Supreme Court said, "You have the right to get an abortion, but it's not unconstitutional for Congress to refuse to fund abortions as part of medical care." However, the California Supreme Court decided the issue the other way around; they said, "You do have to fund it." The justification for that conclusion began, "Now, we're not saying anything about the morality of abortion, we simply don't take any stance on that. All we're saying is that abortion has to be treated like other forms of child-birth decisions." So I said, "Well, why don't you say, "We're not saying anything about the morality of abortion, we just feel it has to be treated as the equivalent of other forms of homicide." The classification was a moral statement, so it was a sham neutrality.
Welcome to the workings of a World Class Mind!
To: Dimensio
Either evolution is true or creation as described in Genesis is true. Perfect example of the false dilemma fallacy.And this is a perfect example of a false dichotomy.
The Darwinists always want to talk about something other than the dearth of evidentiary support for Evolution. But you are consistent!
To: KenPhil
For one thing, the (goofy) quote above. Did the Greeks even know about crucifixion? Did Socrates ever say this in any source we have?You condemn the statement, confess you don't know the answer yourself, and then plead for someone to inform you in the hope that the answer will confirm your knee-jerk condemnation?
Who's being goofy? Who has a third-rate intellect?
Why, you of course. By your own pathetic confession.
To: Phaedrus
Huh? My point is that Johnson's claim that "either evolution or Genesis" is false. He's presenting a logical fallacy of only two choices, then trying to knock down one of them as though it will "prove" the other.
To: Phaedrus
Evolutionists--particularly atheist evolutionists--have an enormous personal investment in their materialist prejudices. They stand to lose in an extraordinarily huge way--often in lifestyle choices--if they are wrong. They will admit no light that might disclose their error. Their most terrible fear is to discover that God--not they--owns their lives and bodies and will hold them accountable.
The science itself is strictly secondary.
To: Phaedrus; AdminModerator; JimRobinson
To: Kevin Curry
To: VadeRetro
Post #103 was undoubtedly ad hominem attack, which you know is irrelevant to truth. Glad it's gone.
To: Dimensio
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 561-577 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson