Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rodasmith (talk | contribs) at 01:36, 12 February 2006 (new posts belong on the bottom of talk pages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User Gilbert says: I am going to try once again to take off the "American Theologian" category. Johnson is not trained as a theologian and by no stretch of the imgagination can you even argue that he is a theologian. Get over it. 8-3-05

Are the ISBN links really appropriate? And, how do we split the commission from his publishers? Alai 05:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, they do no harm. See Misplaced Pages:ISBN. You can buy them from Amazon.com using one of the links and Amazon will donate a fee to the Wikimedia Foundation, possibly others will too if you're anti-Amazoninst types. Dunc|☺ 14:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No policy is articulated on whether or where to use them. I think they look pretty ugly as used in this article. If the book has a page of it's own, by all means cite the ISBN there. If not, is it worth doing so right next to a dead link? At the worst, a references section would be tidier. Alai 18:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you create a bibliography at the bottom of the article, where that list of titles (and ISBNs) could go, without disturbing the flow of the body text? I agree that it is bad form to plop an isbn in the middle of a sentence. --BTfromLA 18:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reversion coming

I am going to make big edits on the edit that was just added to this article. Here is my reasoning.

The contributer added a very large 'criticism' section about 'Teach the Controversy'. This would be much better off at the article Teach the Controversy than here. Secondly the criticism is intellectually flawed, since it summarises to 'we shouldn't teach the controversy since there isn't one'. The very fact that we are talking about it indicates that there is a controversy. Millions of people in the US alone think that alternative views of evolution deserve space in teaching - thats enough to be a controversy.

Finally, this is another case where the contributer is trying to conduct a debate under the pretense of writing an article. Adding all the the reasons why they (the contributer) thinks Johnson is wrong is good for a debating society, but bad for an encyclopedia. People come here to find out about Johnson and what he says or thinks, not to get embroiled in an argument about whether he is right or not. DJ Clayworth 16:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. --VorpalBlade 16:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I moved most of the 'criticism' section to the 'philosophy' section, since much of it was quotes from Johnson himself (presumably he wasn't criticising himself). Some of the rest was duplicates of the philosophy section. DJ Clayworth 16:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who is paying for all of this?

Talking about money, there is interesting controversy surrounding the funding of the Discovery Institute - see below. Ian Pitchford 13:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Genesis To Dominion Fat-Cat Theocrat Funds Creationism Crusade by Steve Benen Americans United for Separation of Church and State from: Church & State, July/August 2000

Anti-evolution crusader Phillip Johnson, dedicated his 1997 book, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, to "Roberta and Howard, who understood 'the wedge' because they love the Truth."

The mysterious reference is apparently a note of thanks to Howard F. Ahmanson Jr. and his wife Roberta, a wealthy and secretive Orange County, Calif., couple who have generously funded the anti-evolution movement and other right-wing causes that advance their fundamentalist Christian outlook.

Howard Ahmanson, however, is no ordinary fat-cat. The savings and loan heir has maintained a long-time relationship with Christian Reconstructionism, an extreme faction of the Religious Right that seeks to replace American democracy with a harsh fundamentalist theocracy.

Reconstructionists believe conservative Christians should take "dominion" over American society. Under their version of "biblical law," the death penalty would be required for over a dozen categories of offenders, including adulterers, homosexuals, witches, incorrigible children and those who spread "false" religions. They regard the teaching of evolution as part of a "war against Genesis."

Ahmanson served for over two decades on the board of directors of the Chalcedon Foundation, Rousas J. Rushdoony's Reconstructionist think tank that serves as the intellectual center of the movement. Ahmanson has also generously supported the Foundation's work.

As for Ahmanson's interests in opposing evolution, his relationship with leaders such as Johnson raises a series of questions about how the movement to "defeat" evolution is paid for and what the larger agenda might be.

There is little doubt that the Ahmansons have the resources to help finance anti-evolution efforts. The family's wealth grew exponentially during the 1950s and '60s when Howard Ahmanson Sr, made billions in the savings and loan industry. After his death, his estate was divided between his son Howard F. Ahmanson and the Ahmanson Foundation, which had $663 million in assets at the end of 1996. (H.F. Ahmanson & Co., the parent company of Home Savings of America, had over $47 billion in assets in 1997.)

With a vast fortune in hand, the Ahmansons are playing an active role in ensuring the anti-evolution movement's success.

According to Reason magazine, promotional materials from the Seattle-based Discovery Institute acknowledge that the Ahmanson family donated $1.5 million to the Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture for a research and publicity program to "unseat not just Darwinism but also Darwinism's cultural legacy." In fact, the August 1999 issue of the Discovery Institute's Journal recognizes an Ahmanson outfit for providing the Center's start-up funds.

With such high-powered assistance, the Center has quickly become a leading anti-evolution organization. The center's senior fellows include some of the highest profile advocates of "Intelligent Design" creationism, including David Berlinski, William Dembski and Michael Behe. Johnson himself is listed among the center's two official advisors.

Additionally, Roberta Green Ahmanson provided the funding for Dembski to appear at her alma mater, Calvin College, a conservative Christian school in Michigan, to promote his approach to attacking evolution. Although he claims to be interested only in the scientific "evidence" against evolution, Dembski's appearance was listed as part of the college's "Seminars in Christian Scholarship."

Funding from the Ahmansons is not always obvious. For example, the Fieldstead Institute is an extension of the Ahmanson empire, which frequently provides financial support for creationist causes. Dembski's appearance at Calvin was sponsored by a group called Fieldstead and Company. (Both appear to derive their name from Howard's middle name, Fieldstead.)

Ahmanson has also taken an interest in providing money for other political causes, including support for voucher subsidies for religious schools and opposition to gay rights and pornography. In the January/February 1997 issue of Religion & Liberty, published by the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, he argued that the Bible opposes minimum wage laws.

Ahmanson's opposition to evolution remains part of his larger agenda of establishing a fundamentalist "Christian nation." In the coming years, as different groups and personalities step into the anti-evolution fray, Ahmanson's role bears watching.

Johnson and his 2 controversies

I've cut the entire HIV-AIDS section:

Johnson is involved in a movement challenging the scientific orthodoxy that HIV is the cause of AIDS. This group asserts, broadly, that there is no scientific evidence that HIV actually causes AIDS, and that while HIV and AIDS are correlated, they are not universally correlated, as (it is argued) there are people who have AIDS symptoms without HIV and people with HIV who have no AIDS symptoms. They argue that correlative statistics are misleading, because AIDS is defined by the presence of the HIV virus, so that a person with tuberculosis and HIV has AIDS, but a person with Tuberculosis but without HIV does not have AIDS. One researcher for the organization reported finding over 4,000 cases in which AIDS symptoms were suffered without HIV, but these cases were not counted as AIDS because the HIV virus was absent. Since, they argue, there is no known mechanism of causation nor is there a perfect correlation, they conclude that the cause of AIDS is as yet unknown. Johnson's view that HIV is not the cause of AIDS is an opinion rejected by the scientific and medical communities at large.

Except for one link to a co-authored paper, this is not about Johnson. it as a rebuttal to virusmyth.net's claim that the HIV-AIDS connection is not fully established.

I suspect someone put this in here, to "prove" that Johnson doesn't think clearly on one topic, so he must not be thinking clearly on the other topic (i.e., intelligent design). This is ad hominem argumentation, and should not be part of an encyclopedia article.

It would be okay, though, to say something like:

• critics of Johnson cite his 1994 papers on AIDS causations as blah, blah blah
• Professor M. Ito Chondria argued that if his reasoning is so faulty about HIV - which everyone knows causes AIDS - why should we listen to him about evolution?

I suggest we mention the paper he wrote himself:

• The thinking problem in HIV-science

and characterize it not as denying any connection between HIV and AIDS but as strongly criticizing the arguments that HIV causes AIDS. Uncle Ed 18:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Give it rest, Ed. Back to pushing a creationist POV again? The content is exceptionally well supported. Your criticisms and edits smack of POV-deletionism and dissembling. You're going to have to step up with some better reasoning than that to delete well-supported content. FeloniousMonk 23:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

What does ID promote?

Cut from intro:

, and promotes creationism as an alternative

I'm not sure intelligent design promotes creationism. Isn't there a controversy about that?

If it's not true then it shouldn't be in the intro because false information shouldn't be in the article at all!

And if it *is* true, then it's only a click away. If anyone reading about Johnson has no idea what intelligent design is, they can click on the link and its intro should say what it promotes.

The present article should be about Phillip Johnson. Uncle Ed 20:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ed, pull the other one. Dunc|☺ 21:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• This is all semantics but technically I think Ed is right here. I have always seen intelligent design as a repackaged form of creationism. Savey proponents of I.D. seem to be quite explicit that ID is NOT creationism and certainly don't promote creationism. However, they have not managed to train their followers to do the same which is why ID smacks of promoting creationism in, for example, the letters pages of local newspapers. I think Ed is coming from the savey perspective possibly not realising that ID cover has been blown. David D. (Talk) 23:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Teaching the controversy Ed? Three points: 1) Anything that says the universe was arranged in a particular way for life is a form of creationsim definition, by necessity. 2) All leading ID proponents have stated that they believe the designer is God (and likely the Protestant God, at that), 3)As to which form of creationism ID is, it's Neo-Creationsim. There is no controversy about these three points except from ID proponents themselves who think the backdoor to the science class room is still open. FeloniousMonk 23:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Christian minister and Christian leader categories

Johnson is a Christian leader because he's called the father of the intelligent design movement. By definition, he's a Christian leader. Johnson is a Christian minister because he speaks at churches and is vocal about his Christian faith. --Jason Gastrich 23:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

But I thought Johnson touts ID as science, not religion? Wasn't that the whole point of the recent Dover trial? With regard to minister, if thats how you define a minister then it's fine with me. I always thought it was more official than just speaking to congregations. David D. (Talk) 23:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

ID is usually seen as science and not religion, but I don't think that matters much here. Johnson is a Christian and a leader in the ID movement.

"Christian minister" is a loose phrase. Basically, if you are a Christian and are sharing your faith and/or the biblical scriptures, you're a Christian minister. He wouldn't fit the category of Christian pastor, though. --Jason Gastrich 23:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Not all Christians support ID. I believe you're committing a Fallacy_of_composition. Some Christians support ID, that does not mean ID is, itself, "Christian." It's just something some Christians support. There's a difference. Further, as the Dover case shows, you can't have it both ways. Science is not religion and religion is not science. You've actually just demonstrated what torpedoed the ID case in Dover. Mark K. Bilbo 02:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed inaccurate quote

2/11/06 I removed a quote attributed to Johnson that he never really said according to http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/post_4.html the editing dialog never gave me an opportunity to explain the edit in the edit history so I'm doing it here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.69.216.76 (talk • contribs) .