Free speech at Southern Methodist University

Rob Grano writes: "Dembski and Johnson have problems with methodological naturalism because in the modern science classroom it has been subsumed into philosophical naturalism; hence their question, "What's the difference?" If today's methodological naturalism functions under the metaphysical umbrella of philosophical naturalism, there really isn't much of a difference. To put it another way, philosophical naturalism is functioning under the guise of methodological naturalism." The metaphysical umbrella under which methodological naturalism operates depends on the operators themselves. Does gravity operate differently depending on whether one is a Christian, Jew, Buddhist or atheist? Is the math different? Exactly how would a 'theistic science' look? Does the inverse-square law for electromagnetism demonstrate the existence of God? Yes, there are those who use scientific facts to bolster their personal metaphysics, but that doesn't mean that their claims are valid or that the process of science is inherently wrong or flawed. The fact is, there is a difference between metaphysical and philosophical naturalism. One common error is to assume that the success of metaphysical naturalism 'proves' that philosophical naturalism is valid. The second common error is projecting "guilt by association", rejecting methodological naturalism as a valid research approach because some people (incorrectly) think it bolsters a case against God. The queerest thing of all is that the same scientists who promote ID routinely employ methodologically naturalistic methods in their own field of study. Go figure. If it's such a bad and shortsighted practice, why are ID arguments formulated with it?
"As to theistic evolution, Johnson, in the Touchstone interview I cited above, states that it's theistic evolutionists who have a problem with ID, not the other way around. He says, "I was the biggest troublemaker of all, so I found myself bitterly resented in the Christian academic world. Theistic evolution is the same thing as atheistic evolution with a certain amount of God-talk. They don t see any merit whatsoever in alleging that God left us some fingerprints on the evidence." The key point is that last sentence." Thanks for providing that quote. You've got the argument backwards. It is irrelevant why or whether most religious scientists reject current formulations of ID: Regardless of the reception to his ideas, Johnson's position will not accommodate theistic evolution. The key point is in the sentence before the last: "Theistic evolution is the same thing as atheistic evolution with a certain amount of God-talk." That's the indicting comment that confirms what I wrote: Johnson and Dembski have an a priori problem with theistic evolution. It does not conform to their belief about how God worked in the world.
Johnson lumps scientist Christians who think God created via evolutionary mechanisms in the same bin as Richard Dawkins et al. He thinks they're simply aiding and abetting 'materialists'. *That* is the key problem of Johnson's position. If you've followed discussions, articles and books sponsored by members of the American Scientific Affiliation (a rather large organization of Christians who are professional scientists), you'll find that nearly all of these scientists who might identify with theistic evolution strongly disagree with Johnson's allegations. They *do not* fall in line behind Dawkins. Quite the opposite. And it is simply not true that theistic evolutionists find no merit with the possibility that God left some "fingerprints". First, these people are Christians, and so they accept the revelation of the Bible and the historical existance of Jesus. Second, they aren't opposed to the idea that God could leave 'interruptive' artifacts in biological history; they simply happen to know from a historical perspective and intimate experience in their fields that the data for that is not good. For all theist scientists, the totality of the universe *is* an example of God's work. Many would welcome evidence of divine intervention but remain unconvinced (despite Johnson et al.'s cheerleading) that an often promised but never delivered "theistic science" of ID is the way to go. For Johnson's writings, it is easy to discern that his theological beliefs depend highly on the notion that God's fingerprints are necessarily manifested as a series of 'disruptive'interventions in natural history. As many others have noted previously, the evidence he has reguritated in his books is not good science and the philosophical arguments he deploys are not terribly good theology. On a related note: Earlier in this discussion, Rob Grano mentioned the possibility of Deist IDer's. Well, here's an example: Michael Denton. Recall that Denton's first book, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" was cited by Johnson as an inspiration for his own jumping off into ID (I'd say Johnson lifted a couple chapters of his own book straight out of Denton's). In a domino-like manner, Behe later cites Johnson's book as a driver behind his own book. Now, fast forward a few more years after Behe publishes: Denton comes out with a second book, "Nature's Destiny", in which he claims that the intergradations and molecular distances between species demonstrate the common relatedness between life and that the bridges between organisms are tiny and readily crossed by mechanisms naturally present in the universe. Denton claims that the universe was designed at the very beginning such that life would naturally emerge as the result of the built-in laws of nature. So, according to Denton, there were no 'disruptive' interventions that were necessary once the universe was created. Further, he says that the manner by which organisms arose can be understood as the consequence of the interaction of physical laws in nature (e.g. conventional science). It's no wonder that Behe and Johnson seemed poleaxed during a roundtable discussion of Denton's second book.

For most of the 20th century peptic ulcers were believed to be caused by stress or poor diet. Two Australian physicians named Barry Marshall and Robin Warren theorized that most peptic ulcers were caused by a bacteria called Helicobacter pylori. They were almost alone in this belief, and took an enormous amount of abuse from collegues in medicine. For most of the 1980's they were scoffed at as crackpots. By the early 1990's they had been proven right. They won the Nobel Prize in 2005. At what point in the 1980's do you believe it would have been appropriate to prosecute them under libel or slander laws?