Philip E. Johnsonia on tuotu tällä palstalla esiin viime aikoina ja hänen uusinta kreationistista kirjaansa. Tarkastellaanpa vähän Johnsonin taustoja ja pätevyyttä luonnontieteellisten kysymyksien asiantuntijana.
Hän EI ole luonnontieteilijä ollenkaan, vaan oikeustieteen professori Berkeleyn yliopistosta (University of California). Hän on "Älykäs suunnittelu" (ID)-liikkeen eräs perustaja.
Johnsonin valikoivuus tosiasioiden hyväksymisessä on myös tuotu esiin:
"Johnson is very selective when choosing data for his attacks upon "Darwinism." (Johnson always refers to evolutionary biology as "Darwinism" to give it the flavor of a cult; one might as well call General Relativity "Einsteinism," or electromagnetics "Maxwellism.") He labels the scientific method as "atheist materialism," but then glosses over the fact that huge numbers of Christians have no problem with God using evolution as his method of creation. In fact, Johnson refers to Christians who accept evolution (such as Pope John Paul II or Archbishop Sheehan) as "incoherent." In other words, Phillip Johnson doesn't just want to redefine science as it is practiced - he also wants to redefine what it means to be a "Christian." I find this Aspect of "Intelligent Design" to be most troubling."
Ja minkä tähden biologiaan ei kuulu yliluonnollisten tekijöiden huomioonottaminen- vastaus Johnsonille (tiede on rajoittunut vain luonnollisiin selityksiin):
"Phillip Johnson makes it all sound so reasonable: "Don't exclude God as a possible hypothesis." But it's simply not the job of science to explain the ultimate questions, such as the Purpose of Life. Science is restricted to study of only the natural world,and of the natural laws that govern its behaviors. Miracles aren't allowed in algebra or chemistry; the chemist who claims an increase in yield of 55% because of "a miracle" is not going to win any new grants. Why should biology be singled out as the only science that permits the supernatural? Science is limited to natural explanations, period. This doesn't mean there is no God - only that Science is not the right tool for that investigation. As biologist Robert Dorit of Yale University says, "The hand of God may well be all around us, but it is not, nor can it be, the task of science to dust for fingerprints."
Lisää Johnsonin väitteiden heikkouksia ja kyvyttömyyttä selittää tosiasioita samalta sivulta:
"'Intelligent Design' doesn't explain anything about life, other than it should appear "designed." It doesn't explain why there are no kangaroos in New Mexico, while evolution does - species evolve differently on isolated continents. Evolution explains the order of the fossil record, while "Intelligent Design" doesn't explain this at all. In fact, one popular version of the "Intelligent Design" hypothesis holds that there shouldn't even be a fossil "record," as all creatures were created in a six-day period some 6000 years ago. What part of "Intelligent Design" tells us whether fossils should all appear in the same stratum (six-day creation) or spread out over billions of years (continuous creations)? There is no "Theory" in "Intelligent Design Theory." The Emperor has no clothes. With no theory of its own, the main job of "Intelligent Design" is to bashevolutionary biology and paleontology, implying that it is the only logical alternative. But even these attacks are unfounded, and ultimately ineffective. Phillip Johnson says that natural selection and mutation cannot create new information, period. It doesn't matter if you have billions of years, he said, because billions of years of nothing new results in nothing new.
Johnson ignores the wealth of examples showing his assertions are flat wrong. The one I presented at UNM and Tech involves a bacterium in Japan that has evolved the ability to ingest nylon. The ability was the result of a drastic mutation that would have normally been lethal, robbing the organism of metabolic enzymes; but since the new protein coded by the mutated DNA strand was active on nylon, the new creatures survived, and thrived. This new enzyme - a complex, twisty-turny protein that reacts chemically with nylon oligomers - is very clearly an example of new information (the protein's recipe) resulting from mutation and selection. What Phillip Johnson says is impossible, IS possible; this example, and many others, prove it."
http://www.nmsr.org/johnson.htm (kaikki ylläolevat lainaukset)
Tässä kommentoidaan erästä väittelyohjelmaa evoluutio vs. kreationismi ("Firing Line",a PBS program, 19.12.1997)
"Johnson and Dr. David Berlinski (both anti-evolution) came across as very angry individuals. They seemed to be upset that the facts of evolution were taking away faith in their god(s). They were unwilling to present their views of how life got here, but it seemed obvious that they believe in supernatural intervention. Johnson spent much of his time performing ad hominem attacks on Richard Dawkins who wasn't even there. At one point, Rev. Barry Lynn (evolutionist) asked Johnson what he thought of ICR's books showing humans walking around with dinosaurs just before the flood. Johnson
responded with, "It is silly. Just almost as silly as the work of Richard Dawkins. And I mean that."
To summarize, both sides presented their positions poorly. The Evolutionists had all the evidence in their corner--but outside of Miller, they seldom used it. The Creationists ignored several of the key questions raised (like why an intelligent designer would allow his creation to go extinct) and they didn't present an alternative theory with any evidence for support. Based on this debate alone, it appears that some Creationists would not change their thinking regardless of the evidence. The Evolutionists are more than willing to modify their theory as new data is gathered and would change their opinion should an alternative theory be presented which had more evidential weight than evolution does. "
http://www.2think.org/ddbom.shtml
Lisää kommentteja Johnsonin näkemyksistä (huom! Konservatiivisen kristityn palautetta alla).
Tällä sivulla osoitetaan, että yhtälailla kreationisti Johnson jäi kiinni epärehellisyydestä ja
lähteidensä vääristelystä.
">However, Phil has excluded some of us from the discussion. I agree with
>95% of what he says, but the 5% is what excludes us. We agree on the big
>picture, but we disagree with some of the detailed criticisms of evolution
>and the inclusion of the intelligent design claim as an essential plank in
>the big picture. We are simply labelled as accommodationists. This
>exclusion occurs several times in the book--perhaps most pointedly in the
>first chapter where Johnson closes with these words:
>
>"I therefore put the following simple proposition on the table for
>discussion: God is our true Creator. I am not speaking of a God who is
>known only by faith and is invisible to reason, or who acted undetectably
>behind some naturalistic evolutionary process that was to all appearances
>mindless and purposeless. That kind of talk is about the human
>imagination, not the reality of God. I speak of a God who acted openly and
>who left his fingerprints all over the evidence."
>
Phil seems to be getting narrower and narrower as time goes by. At times he seems to be open to all theists and to consider anyone who believes God is creator as a creationist. Now its clear that
what he means by theism is "meaninglful" theism where he, as high priest, gets to define what meaningful is.
I'm a theist and also a conservative Christian yet I cannot accept the theological position Phil paints above....Yes, this seems to me to be just plain dishonest.
Johnson acts like
he's uncovered some tremendous blunder yet the problems with the model that Johnson reveals are clearly stated by Dawkins himself.
Johnson even states "Richard Dawkins actually uses examples like this to illustrate the creative power of natural selection ..."
which simply is not true. Dawkins states explicitly that he's illustrating cumulative selection and he states explicitly that
he is *not* illustrating natural selection.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University "
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199709/0031.html
Hän EI ole luonnontieteilijä ollenkaan, vaan oikeustieteen professori Berkeleyn yliopistosta (University of California). Hän on "Älykäs suunnittelu" (ID)-liikkeen eräs perustaja.
Johnsonin valikoivuus tosiasioiden hyväksymisessä on myös tuotu esiin:
"Johnson is very selective when choosing data for his attacks upon "Darwinism." (Johnson always refers to evolutionary biology as "Darwinism" to give it the flavor of a cult; one might as well call General Relativity "Einsteinism," or electromagnetics "Maxwellism.") He labels the scientific method as "atheist materialism," but then glosses over the fact that huge numbers of Christians have no problem with God using evolution as his method of creation. In fact, Johnson refers to Christians who accept evolution (such as Pope John Paul II or Archbishop Sheehan) as "incoherent." In other words, Phillip Johnson doesn't just want to redefine science as it is practiced - he also wants to redefine what it means to be a "Christian." I find this Aspect of "Intelligent Design" to be most troubling."
Ja minkä tähden biologiaan ei kuulu yliluonnollisten tekijöiden huomioonottaminen- vastaus Johnsonille (tiede on rajoittunut vain luonnollisiin selityksiin):
"Phillip Johnson makes it all sound so reasonable: "Don't exclude God as a possible hypothesis." But it's simply not the job of science to explain the ultimate questions, such as the Purpose of Life. Science is restricted to study of only the natural world,and of the natural laws that govern its behaviors. Miracles aren't allowed in algebra or chemistry; the chemist who claims an increase in yield of 55% because of "a miracle" is not going to win any new grants. Why should biology be singled out as the only science that permits the supernatural? Science is limited to natural explanations, period. This doesn't mean there is no God - only that Science is not the right tool for that investigation. As biologist Robert Dorit of Yale University says, "The hand of God may well be all around us, but it is not, nor can it be, the task of science to dust for fingerprints."
Lisää Johnsonin väitteiden heikkouksia ja kyvyttömyyttä selittää tosiasioita samalta sivulta:
"'Intelligent Design' doesn't explain anything about life, other than it should appear "designed." It doesn't explain why there are no kangaroos in New Mexico, while evolution does - species evolve differently on isolated continents. Evolution explains the order of the fossil record, while "Intelligent Design" doesn't explain this at all. In fact, one popular version of the "Intelligent Design" hypothesis holds that there shouldn't even be a fossil "record," as all creatures were created in a six-day period some 6000 years ago. What part of "Intelligent Design" tells us whether fossils should all appear in the same stratum (six-day creation) or spread out over billions of years (continuous creations)? There is no "Theory" in "Intelligent Design Theory." The Emperor has no clothes. With no theory of its own, the main job of "Intelligent Design" is to bashevolutionary biology and paleontology, implying that it is the only logical alternative. But even these attacks are unfounded, and ultimately ineffective. Phillip Johnson says that natural selection and mutation cannot create new information, period. It doesn't matter if you have billions of years, he said, because billions of years of nothing new results in nothing new.
Johnson ignores the wealth of examples showing his assertions are flat wrong. The one I presented at UNM and Tech involves a bacterium in Japan that has evolved the ability to ingest nylon. The ability was the result of a drastic mutation that would have normally been lethal, robbing the organism of metabolic enzymes; but since the new protein coded by the mutated DNA strand was active on nylon, the new creatures survived, and thrived. This new enzyme - a complex, twisty-turny protein that reacts chemically with nylon oligomers - is very clearly an example of new information (the protein's recipe) resulting from mutation and selection. What Phillip Johnson says is impossible, IS possible; this example, and many others, prove it."
http://www.nmsr.org/johnson.htm (kaikki ylläolevat lainaukset)
Tässä kommentoidaan erästä väittelyohjelmaa evoluutio vs. kreationismi ("Firing Line",a PBS program, 19.12.1997)
"Johnson and Dr. David Berlinski (both anti-evolution) came across as very angry individuals. They seemed to be upset that the facts of evolution were taking away faith in their god(s). They were unwilling to present their views of how life got here, but it seemed obvious that they believe in supernatural intervention. Johnson spent much of his time performing ad hominem attacks on Richard Dawkins who wasn't even there. At one point, Rev. Barry Lynn (evolutionist) asked Johnson what he thought of ICR's books showing humans walking around with dinosaurs just before the flood. Johnson
responded with, "It is silly. Just almost as silly as the work of Richard Dawkins. And I mean that."
To summarize, both sides presented their positions poorly. The Evolutionists had all the evidence in their corner--but outside of Miller, they seldom used it. The Creationists ignored several of the key questions raised (like why an intelligent designer would allow his creation to go extinct) and they didn't present an alternative theory with any evidence for support. Based on this debate alone, it appears that some Creationists would not change their thinking regardless of the evidence. The Evolutionists are more than willing to modify their theory as new data is gathered and would change their opinion should an alternative theory be presented which had more evidential weight than evolution does. "
http://www.2think.org/ddbom.shtml
Lisää kommentteja Johnsonin näkemyksistä (huom! Konservatiivisen kristityn palautetta alla).
Tällä sivulla osoitetaan, että yhtälailla kreationisti Johnson jäi kiinni epärehellisyydestä ja
lähteidensä vääristelystä.
">However, Phil has excluded some of us from the discussion. I agree with
>95% of what he says, but the 5% is what excludes us. We agree on the big
>picture, but we disagree with some of the detailed criticisms of evolution
>and the inclusion of the intelligent design claim as an essential plank in
>the big picture. We are simply labelled as accommodationists. This
>exclusion occurs several times in the book--perhaps most pointedly in the
>first chapter where Johnson closes with these words:
>
>"I therefore put the following simple proposition on the table for
>discussion: God is our true Creator. I am not speaking of a God who is
>known only by faith and is invisible to reason, or who acted undetectably
>behind some naturalistic evolutionary process that was to all appearances
>mindless and purposeless. That kind of talk is about the human
>imagination, not the reality of God. I speak of a God who acted openly and
>who left his fingerprints all over the evidence."
>
Phil seems to be getting narrower and narrower as time goes by. At times he seems to be open to all theists and to consider anyone who believes God is creator as a creationist. Now its clear that
what he means by theism is "meaninglful" theism where he, as high priest, gets to define what meaningful is.
I'm a theist and also a conservative Christian yet I cannot accept the theological position Phil paints above....Yes, this seems to me to be just plain dishonest.
Johnson acts like
he's uncovered some tremendous blunder yet the problems with the model that Johnson reveals are clearly stated by Dawkins himself.
Johnson even states "Richard Dawkins actually uses examples like this to illustrate the creative power of natural selection ..."
which simply is not true. Dawkins states explicitly that he's illustrating cumulative selection and he states explicitly that
he is *not* illustrating natural selection.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University "
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199709/0031.html
Vastaukset 4
Vanhimmat
Aivan oikein! Biologien kuuluu tutkia vain luonnollisia syitä. Olivat ne sitten oikeita tai vääriä, sillä ei ole mitään merkitystä. Biologien täytyy lähteä siitä, että luonnolliset syyt ovat lajien synnyn takana. Jos luonnollisia syitä ei löydy nyt, silloin voidaan sanoa, että tulevaisuudessa löytyy. Tai sitten niitä keksitään. Näin ollen evoluutioteoria on täysin kumoamaton ja vedenpitävä teoria.
Tieteen kanssa tuollaisella touhulla ei luonnollisestikaan ole juurikaan tekemistä.
varma, että jumalasi hyväksyy valehtelun?
...jotta voisimme vedenpitävästi määritellä, mikä on "luonnollista", tulee meidän ensin tietää kaikki ns. "luonnonlaeista".
Valitettavasti emme vielä tiedä läheskään kaikkea. (Jonka puolestaan kaikki tieteentekijät tietävät - ns. tieteen popularisointi sitten usein ilmaisee asioita varmoina, jotka myöhemmin kumoutuvat, tai osoittautuvat vajaiksi [vaikka ovat olleet ehkäpä käyttökelpoisia aikoinaan ns. "tikkaina", joilta pääsee ajattelussa pidemmälle]).
Esim. Aurinkokeskeinen maailmankuva oli muiden paitsi keksijänsä mielestä erittäin "epäluonnollinen" keskiajalla.
Siksi pitäisin sekä evolutionistien "luonnollinen" käsitettä samaten kuin vaikkapa kreationistien "yliluonnollinen" käsitettä epätarkkoina ilmaisuina.
Siitä olen eri mieltä, etteikö hommalla ole tieteen kanssa tekemistä - tiede tarvitsee teorioita ja spekulaatioita edistyäkseen. Itse näen evoluutiohypoteesin arvokkaana ajattelun stimulanttina - yhtä arvokkaana kuin sen vastahypoteesinkin. Siihen asti, kuin kummastakaan ei ole 100% varmuutta (vaikka joku haluaisikin vaipua dogmatismiin puolin ja toisin) kannattaa pohdiskelussa pitää molempia esillä.
Yleensä antiteesin esillä pitäminen auttaa myös teesin kirkastamista.
Oman vakaumukseni mukaan ihminen on luotu ajattelevaksi olioksi, ja totuus kestänee kaikki ajatuskokeet. Omia luutuneita käsityksiä voi joskus joutua tosin muuttamaan.
Lukiessani erilaista kritiikkiä niin kreationismia kuin evoluutioteoriaa kohtaan tulee joskus sellainen fiilis, että tarjolla ei ole yhtäkään luotettavaa, todistettavissa mallia maailman ja elämän alkuperästä.
Nuoren maan kreationistit etsivät "bugeja" vanhan maan kreationismista ja päinvastoin. Molemmat kreationistit etsivät ongelmakohtia evoluutioteoriasta (erityisesti makroevoluutiosta)
Evoluutioteorian kannattajat tuovat esiin virheet ja viat, joita on kaikenlaisessa kreationismissa (mukaan lukien ID-kreationismi).
Tilannetta kun katselee näyttäisi ensi silmäykseltä, että meillä on vain kokoelma epävarmoja,vailla todisteita olevia olettamuksia, ja ainoa kaikkien osapuolien hyväksymä asia on mikroevoluutio.
Mitäpä tilanteessa voisi tehdä, onko ainoa vaihtoehto pessimismi ja jonkinlainen agnostismi- emme tiedä näistä asioista mitään varmuudella.
Vaikka mikään tieteellinen teoria ei olekaan absoluuttinen totuus eikä varsinkaan ikuinen, niin silti ne ovat likiarvoja todellisuudesta. Mutta eivät mitä tahansa olettamuksia, vaan mahdollisimman hyvin perusteltuja ja empiirisesti (kokemusperäisesti) testattuja olettamuksia.
Teoria on avoimella tutkimuksella vahvistettu testattu käsitejärjestelmä, jota voidaan kehittää ja parantaa. Tiedeyhteisö on erittäin kriittinen ympäristö, eikä siellä voi menestyä huijauksella, lopulta huijaukset ja vääristelyt tulevat ilmi. Ja kriittisen tutkimuksen avulla voidaan korjata ja vahvistaa olemassa olevaa teoriaa.
Tutkimuksella voidaan myös kumota väärä teoria, jos teoria ei pysty selittämään uusia havaintoja. Malli on alustava ajatusrakennelma, josta voidaan tutkimuksen avulla johtaa uutta tietoa. Malli voi johtaa uuden teoria syntyyn. Evoluutioteoria täyttää teorialle asetetut tieteelliset vaatimukset.
Evoluutioteoria on läpikäynyt yli 150 vuoden ajan tiedeyhteisön sisäistä testausta ja kritiikkiä ja evoluutioteoria on selvinnyt tästä testistä. Voimme perustellusti sanoa, että tutkimustulokset tukevat evoluutioteoriaa.
Kriittisiä ääniä on tietysti kuulunut tiedeyhteisössä ja kuuluu edelleenkin, mutta ei se ole mitenkään "kiusallista", vaan normaalia tiedeyhteisön toimintaa. On tieteellisen ajattelun mukaista esittää kritiikkiä myös
evoluutioteoriaa kohtaan -kun kritiikki on nimenomaan tieteellisesti perusteltua, eikä siis omiin uskonnollisiin tai filosofisiin näkemyksiin perustuvaa. Evoluution osalta osalta suuret linjat (kuten luonnonvalinta) on yleisesti
hyväksytty päteväksi, mutta yksityiskohdissa riittää tutkittavaa edelleen.
Emme varmasti voi millään järkevällä perusteella tehdä johtopäätöstä, että kaikki tämä toista sataa vuotta kestänyt tutkimus biologian, geologian ja paleontologian kentillä ei ole löytänyt mitään luotettavaa, pätevää ja todistettua tietoa. Ei voitane olettaa järkevästi, että kaikki on perustunut vain johonkin "salaliittoon" ja "huijaukseen" kuten kreationistit korostavat.
Toisekseen voisimme tarkastella sitäkin, että minkä teorian puitteissa on saatu aikaiseksi merkittäväksi tunnustettua ja yleisen hyväksynnän tiedeyhteisössä saaneita tutkimustuloksia. Tällä tavalla katsellen kreationismi kaikissa muodoissaan häviää 6-0: kreationistit eivät ole saaneet 150 vuodessa aikaan mitään tiedeyhteisön kritiikin kestävää luonnontieteellistä tietoa. Evoluutioteorian viitekehyksestä käsin sen sijaan meillä on yleisesti hyväksyttyä ja kritiikin läpäissyttä tietoa valtavia määriä. Evoluutioteorian avulla on myös pystytty tekemään
oikeita ennusteita, joille havainnot ovat myöhemmin antaneet vahvistuksen. Evoluution puolesta löytyy epäilemättä runsaasti positiivisia todisteita, mutta kreationistien todisteet ovat parhaimmillaankin negatiivisia - mutta mikään tieteelliseksi tarkoitettu teoria ei voi rakentua negatiivisten todisteiden varaan.