Phillip E Johnson and the Royal Institute of Philosophy
Does the Royal Institute of Philosophy now endorse, or even consider intellectually respectable, intelligent design (ID)? Some are saying so (see here).
Next time a neo-darwinist claims that ID people do not publish papers I am going to bring out the relevant edition of Think magazine and show them. I can just imagine their jaws drop in outrage when they see that the world’s best philosophers have turned their back on the defunct theory of evolution and embraced ID.
I edit the Royal Institute of Philosophy journal THINK: Philosophy For Everyone. I devoted Issue 11 to intelligent design and fine-tuning, and thought it would be interesting to get Phillip E Johnson – who is v much the public face of ID – to write a piece.
Personally, I consider ID intellectually bankrupt (fine-tuning is slightly more respectable, I think). Many Christians agree with me about that of course.
The idea was to let the ideas slug it out in THINK. Then people will hopefully have a better grasp of the arguments – and their flaws.
The risk of doing this (which I knew I was taking, of course) is that some of the more committed ID people may claim that ID stuff is “being taken seriously”, published in “intellectually rigorous publications”, and even “endorsed by the Royal Institute of Philosophy”.
So, just to make it clear, The R.I.P. does not endorse ID. Nor should people conclude that because Johnson’s piece was published by THINK, the R.I.P considers Johnson’s arguments intellectually robust. The R.I.P., as an organization, has never expressed any view at all about any of these things.
Unfortunately, posts on www.overwhelmingevidence.com suggest otherwise.(NB. some posts on creationist sites are spoofs – could this be one?)