Brian Spitzer criticizes Johnson response

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Response to Brian Spitzer's article, The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth? by Mark Saward

Here is my response to the critique of Johnson's book by Brian Spitzer. It is incomplete because of time restraints.

I have not tried to deliberately ignore parts. Instead, I am addressing his arguments - a lot of what he says is personal opinion, and his spin on the facts. For example, he tries to point out carefully how untrustworthy Johnson should be simply because he is a lawyer - and that we should then reject Johnson's book by association with others who do wrong. I do not answer that, because the response should be obvious - it is possible to defend a guilty person and still retain your integrity. It is possible (as I asked another Christian lawyer) to choose your clients so that you try to do the moral thing. But someone *has* to do it. Anyway, my point is, that I skip some of these more obvious things such as slander that has no place in an intellectual argument.

3. Just the facts, ma'am

Spitzer says, "According to Darwin on Trial, it's about 'ideology.'[...] The problem is that this argument isn't true." The argument of Spitzer is summarised like this: 1. If someone is convinced of a truth, then they do so because there is proof 2. Some scientists are convinced that darwinism is the truth 3. Therefore, these scientists are convinced that darwinism is the truth because it is As you can see, that is absurd - because there are some scientists that believe creationism is the truth - and they can't both be right. So Spitzer's argument is poor, and Johnson was right to say that this is about ideology. His concerns about Johnson forgetting the poll of scientists is irrelevant. That poll does little. Spitzer says, "Either 40% of the scientists in America are fighting tooth and nail in defense of an ideology which they actually reject, or-based on the very poll which Johnson likes to cite-Johnson's argument about ideology is bunk." Spitzer is incorrect. These are not the only two options, and so there is no reason to consider Johnson's idea bunk. I'll give you an example - I personally know a biologist Christian who would then fall into that 40%. I asked him his thoughts on evolution and creation. He simply had never realised there was an opposing view, nor had he considered the evidence for evolution. And he was a biologist. Spitzer ignores this third possibility. There is also the fourth - that even if evolution is wrong, people in that 40% due to cultural pressure, the fear to not appear to be an idiot, etc, would hold on to it. I need go no further than to remind you of the adherence to Ptolemy's flawed model of the universe, despite Galileo's obvious problems. Or the possibility that these men are simply intellectually dishonest. They have not realised that there is a conflict between their faith and darwinism.

Then we find Spitzer saying:

While Darwin on Trial points out that evolutionists like Dawkins, Julian Huxley, and Steven Jay Gould claim or imply that God is dead, it neglects to mention that all these figures have been criticized harshly and publicly by evolutionary biologists for muddying the line between scientific conclusions and metaphysical preferences. Johnson has a ready excuse: he claims that any time scientists say that they are not atheists, it is only to fool the public?or, as he puts it in one of his nastier moments, "for fear of jeopardizing the funding for scientific research" (p.127). However, Darwin on Trial gives no evidence to back up this accusation. That's because no such evidence exists. If Johnson wants to convince us that his accusations of atheism are not just conspiracy theory, he has had plenty of opportunity to do so.

Unfortunately, again, Spitzer misses the point. First, I did not read Johnson's claim as a statement of fact. Nor should he. I read it as an inference from the known facts. It seems to me completely reasonable. My experience of staunch darwinist defenders is that they are almost every time an atheist. The rare times they aren't, it's usually some form of agnosticism which in my eyes is close enough - few atheists truly believes there is absolutely no God. They simply claim they have no proof for God. A different kettle of fish. We should see Johnson's comments in full to get a better understanding than the snippet Spitzer provides gives:

Gould had assured Kristol that among evolutionary biologists there is "an entire spectrum of religious attitudes - from devout daily prayer and worship to resolute atheism." I myself have noticed a great deal more of the latter than the former, and Provine agrees with me. He reports that most evolutionary biologists are atheists, "and many have been driven there by their understanding of the evolutionary process and other science." The few who see no conflict between their biology and their religion "are either obtuse or compartmentalized in their thinking, or are effective atheists without realizing it." Scientific organizations hide the conflict for fear of jeopardizing the funding for scientific research, or because they feel that religion plays a useful role in moral education. According to Provine, who had the Academy's 1984 statement specifically in mind, "These rationalizations are politic but intellectually dishonest."

Seems to me that Spitzer is now the one guilty of quoting out of context. Spitzer makes it sound like Johnson was saying that everyone is an atheist, and if they're not then they're lying for monetary benefit. That was nothing like what Johnson was saying - as you can see clearly above. I believe Johnson was entirely honest and clear here - atheists dominate darwinist evangelism, and those scientists who try to reconcile their faith with it are either intellectually dishonest or on their way to atheism. Perhaps Spitzer is the one guilty of mistruth, or perhaps he is a victim of misunderstanding.

Spitzer then says:

The way science works?methodological naturalism, to call it by its highbrow name[6]?is to try to explain the world in terms of ideas which can be empirically tested.

This is a simple misunderstanding. It is the opinion of culture that science and naturalism are inseparable. That is simply not true. Naturalism is "the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations"

This is actually a very important thing to understand in the entire debate. Science is _not_ inseparably linked with naturalism. It is simply that naturalism is the dominant philosophy. The reverse of it - that the world cannot be fully understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations - is also a legitimate view. This very question is a philosophical one and outside the realm of science. So science can answer as many questions as it is capable of - but the question of how much it can let us understand of the world is a philosophical one. Hence why naturalism is considered a philosophy. Spitzer here attempts to subvert the mind of the reader to accept a philosophy which does not necessarily need to be. His contention, therefore, that everyone uses methodological naturalism every day is simply not true. While it certainly may be dominant, it by no means has to be true. *If* there is a God that created all things, then naturalism is bunk. If there is no God, then it is true. The entire debate hangs on this point. I hope you are beginning to see now why atheism and darwinism are so heavily intertwined.

Spitzer then calls this argument, which doesn't follow.

Scientists aren't precommitted to atheism. They're precommitted to a scientific method that can actually work. The only alternative to methodological naturalism?that is, to trying to understand the world in terms of ideas which can be empirically tested?is to try to understand the world in terms of ideas which can't be tested at all. See if you can unclog your sink that way.

I provided above the answer. Let's consider the options. Naturalism is defined as:

The doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations

Or, an alternative:

The doctrine that the world cannot be understood only in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations

That doesn't say that science cannot help us understand the world. It simply states the obvious - that science cannot answer every question. It leaves the possibility that some questions may be answerable by philosophy, or (more importantly) some may require spiritual or supernatural explanations which are within the umbrella of science. Again, Spitzer attempts to deceive the reader by pretending that there is only one alternative, when there is actually more than one.

Spitzer again trying to move on the same line says "He has been challenged clearly and publicly (for instance, by Robert Pennock)[7] to present a working alternative to methodological naturalism." That is not the point. Johnson is not rejecting science. He is simply saying that not every question can be answered by science. He is not asking to replace science, he's simply saying try to understand its limits. What else is he supposed to give? The alternative to naturalism would require little or no change to science. It would only require a rejection of theories that are founded on the premise of naturalism (such as Darwinism). Most areas of science would be untouched by such a change.