I guess it must be back to Mackay. It is not clear to me that Johnson understands that without the synthetic view of Kant all comes back to "appearence" anyway. Dawkins can not be made to say what Phil wants him to be saying
quote:
Richard Dawkins begins The Blind Watchmaker by acknowledging that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Francis Crick, also a fervent Darwinist and atheist, says in his memoirs that "(b)iologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." Dawkins and Crick, like other scientific materialists, do not give serious consideration to the possibility that organisms look designed because there really is a designer.
here, I think. Phil Johnson tried to say this to Will Provine as well. I told Ken Ham on the radio that I felt Phil got lost in the bug library at Cornell. Trying to link Crick and Dakwins here fails for me.
Kitcher's next response is precisely what WIll retorted to Phil a decade ago. I dont see this debate having made any progress today, so back to the main topic again.
™ Version 4.2