Honorable Opponents

Belongs in its own topic though.AM

I assume you are speaker as an administrator on this matter, in which case I will respect your judgement. However I am not against talking in detail about some of the various authors on this particular post.
Also I noticed that you stated that Phillip Johnson was closer to being an evolutionist that a young earth creationist. Interestingly another individual stated that Michael Behe was 99 % evolutionist. I ask this with no malice intended, but why do you assume that the creationists who have a deep knowledge of science and who can defend their own beliefs well, are more evolutionist?
Phillip Johnson speaks of evolution synonomysly (I realize that is spelled wrong) with materialism. He states at times that most evolutionists see know difference between their materialist beliefs and their evolutionary beliefs. Do you agree with him on this?
When I read Phillip Johnson's works, I do not see an evolutionist.
Apostle

I'd suggest we take this to the
What is a Creationist thread.It will be a bit off the topic I intended there but it does fit pretty well. I'll add a bit there, you can copy your post 17 over as well.

quote:

---

Also I noticed that you stated that Phillip Johnson was closer to being an evolutionist that a young earth creationist. Interestingly another individual stated that Michael Behe was 99 % evolutionist.

---

Both of those opinions came from minnemooseus (minnemooseus is the non-admin mode of Adminnemooseus - We are the same person).

quote:

---

I ask this with no malice intended, but why do you assume that the creationists who have a deep knowledge of science and who can defend their own beliefs well, are more evolutionist?

---

Michael Behe is probably the most prominent advocate of intelligent design. Much of his workings on the ID details (often referred to as "God of the Gaps") have been refuted by others of science. Regardless, Behe accepts both the fact of evolution, and the vast bulk of the theory of evolution. This includes accepting that man and the great apes descended from a common ancestor.Philip Johnson (and I hope I'm not confusing him with someone else) is an old earth creationist. As I understand it, he accepts the bulk of old earth theory. He accepts that the fossil record is indeed an accurate record of the nature of life, down through the many millions of years. To me, in a sense, this makes him a believer in that evolution happened. I will concede that my calling him an evolutionist was at least a bit of an exaggeration. Again, essentially he accepts that some sort of progression of life did indeed occur, BUT instead of accepting the theory of evolution, he believes and advocates that this fossil progression (represented by the fossil record) was a result of a vast series of Godly special creations.

quote:

---

Phillip Johnson speaks of evolution synonymously with materialism. He states at times that most evolutionists see know difference between their materialist beliefs and their evolutionary beliefs. Do you agree with him on this?

---

There was a big topic on "Methodological Naturalism". I presume this is synonymous with "materialism". I don't believe I took part in that debate, by I'll try to venture an opinion here.That "know" (sic "no" threw me for a bit. Slow down those fingers .The study of evolution, and the resultant theory of evolution, is the study of nature, and the study of the processes of nature. God may indeed have had a part in it, but the considerations of God is outside of the considerations of nature. At least from the scientific perspective. As I understand the question, I do agree.

quote:

---

When I read Phillip Johnson's works, I do not see an evolutionist.

---

I admit that my contact with Johnson's ideas came second hand. I've never read any of his works.Like I said above, I concede I went a bit to far, in calling him an evolutionist. I still think he is a lot closer to being an evolutionist, that to being a young earth creationist.I must again plug the "Kenneth R. Miller - Finding Darwin's God", and the book itself, that that topic refers to. Miller discusses both Behe and Johnson in the book.Cheers,
Moose------------------
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links

He is VERY respectable and kindly corresponded to my questions to him about creation and biology. If one looks at instead Johnson's entry into creationism it is clear that if one first answered Syamsyu(or still how I misspell the name)about WHEN reproduction occurs (it depends on how one takes the word "dimension") then Johnson can be read to have made MORE out of the failure of evolutionists to clearly seperate fact finding and theoretical SPACE which I have NEVER found Morris to pervert or revert to than is available about the information involved which founds but those thoughts only that seek to see GOD idolically than the difference in flesh the words will both spell. Johnson made "writing" creationism EASIER as one did not need to refer at least in thought as much to Scripture as Morris remands but it does demand that evolutionary man is easier to support by defense rather than that defense being offensive which it really is especially if one's view of biology and creation continues to follow such as my correspondence with the elder Morris who quite simply stated that if any advance is made in evoulution by manipulation and mathematical calcuation the same is gain saidly possible to the creationist. I suspect that Gould has abrogated this and if so some one such as Mark25 will be able to see that light no longer turned off by said "scientists".

I am curious to know how individuals view a creationist like Phillip Johnson, or Henry Morris. In my opinion these are two of the more respected, widely known creationists.I don't appreciate either man, and I've read both. Philip Johnson, in my opinion, talks like a lawyer (and is one, of course) and is well aware that he's twisting things. Henry Morris has been publicly corrected so much that he's either has not a shred of honesty or he's a lunatic.I like Hugh Ross, but he's an old earther. There's also, uh, is it Walter Brown? I don't agree with him, but he's trying hard.And, believe it or not, I like Ken Ham. He's right up front with saying that his whole belief system is based on Genesis One, and he's going to stick with it no matter what the evidence. Then he fights for it. I could never live like that, holding on to something like that in the face of obvious evidence against it, but, hey, in my opinion, he's the most up front about what he's doing--waging a war based on his very narrow interpretation of Genesis One.

This isn't misquoting, but it's an example of Morris' honesty problem. In the preface to "The Genesis Flood," he says that Charles Lyell was not a geologist, but a lawyer. Charles Lyell studied law for his parents sake, but later went back, studied geology, and was a geology professor for the rest of his life. Morris reprinted "The Genesis Flood" with this lie four times despite being publicly corrected about it often.edit: I've been away from this too long...edited to put the right brackets around the quote code[This message has been edited by truthlover, 12-22-2003]

Truthlover
Whether or not Lyell studied law for his parents sake is irrelevent to me. If he took the necessary steps to becoming a lawyer, for whatever reason, he is still a lawyer. Having said that, Charles Lyell is known to all familiar with him, as a geologist. For Morris to refer to him as a lawyer, does not constitute as a lie, and certainly does not lead me to the conclusion that he has an honesty problem.
Apostle

That would depend on seeing the whole comment of Morris's. If he only referred to him as a lawyer and left out the rest intending to mislead the reader or suggest that Lyell wasn't a competant source of information that would make Morris a liar in most people's minds.In the context of these discussions I can't see any way that Lyell having studied law is relevant. Even without seeing the context if Morris referred to him as a lawyer I would be very, very suspicious that it was with dishonest intent. Perhaps someone could should a fre paragraphs of Morris's so we could judge.

"Perhaps someone could should a fre paragraphs of Morris's so we could judge."
That would indeed be helpful.
Apostle

quote:

---

One of the surprising developments of the past decade has been the resurgence of catastrophism in geological interpretation. Although the great men who were the real founders of geology (Steno, Woodward, et al) were not only catastrophists but believed in the Noahic Flood as the most important geologic event in earth history, the principle of uniformitarianism has dominated geological thinking for the past 150 years. The Scottish agriculturalist, James Hutton, and then the British lawyer, Charles Lyell, persuaded their contemporaries to reject the Biblical chronology and its cataclysmic deluge in favor of very slow processes acting through aeons of time. In his widely used textbook, Zumberge stated as recently as 1963:

---

from: Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation ResearchNot a very serious breach here, but an unnecessary reference to him being a lawyer and leaving out his real claim to fame.(utterly wrong about what uniformitarianism is/was as well of course)From: Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research

quote:

---

It is significant that this uniformitarian revolution was led, not by professional scientific geologists, but by amateurs, men such as Buckland (a theologian), Cuvier (an anatomist), Buffon (a lawyer), Hutton (an agriculturalist), Smith (a surveyor), Chambers (a journalist), Lyell (a lawyer), and others of similar variegated backgrounds. The acceptance of Lyell’s uniformitarianism laid the foundation for the sudden success of Darwinism in the decade following the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859. Darwin frequently acknowledged his debt to Lyell, who he said gave him the necessary time required for natural selection to produce meaningful evolutionary results.

---

That one is a deliberate attempt at misleading the reader. That is dishonest in it's intent and clearly so.------------------
Common sense isn't

"Morris -- wacko? or elder stateman?"Now back to the main topic.AM

You're killing me. The context was, "Hey, Lyell was not a geologist, but a lawyer, so if Lyell can talk about geology without being a geologist, then so can I."Lyell was a geologist. Morris was corrected, although he probably knew he was lying before he was corrected, and he didn't correct his mistake. A purposely uncorrected mistake is a lie. Morris is a liar. It would stand up in court.

If that is the quote you are referring to then that is indeed one thing. However, you did not give specifics the first time. Because of that I assumed that you took issue with only what you mentioned. I state my opinion that to say Lyell was a lawyer is not a lie, and then you give me the quote you were talking about (but neglected to give originally) and say that I am killing you. You would survive longer, assuming you are still in the process of being killed, if you would be more clear and specific the first time you mention something.I find your admiration of Ken Ham as an opponent very interesting. Do you know others who also feel as you do about him? I am only curious for I only hear the worst of him from evolutionists. The only individual that seems to be liked less than Ham is the infamous Kent Hovind.Apostle

quote:

---

I don't appreciate either man, and I've read both. Philip Johnson, in my opinion, talks like a lawyer (and is one, of course) and is well aware that he's twisting things.

---

Johnson also has a charming habit of denigrating his opponents' motives. He doesn't argue that theistic evolutionist have base motives for their position, he just mentions it in passing.I like Kurt Wise. He admits that the scientific evidence favors an old Earth, but believes in a young Earth anyway, based on the Bible. He also recognizes the need for a single, consistent young-Earth model that explains all the data, and has put considerable effort into working on one. I find him to be one of the few creationists that thinks more or less like a scientist.