----- Original Message ----- From: Caryl Johnston To: D.B. Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 11:41 AM Subject: Re: Public Health in a Post-Petroleum World

Dear Dr. B-----,

I enjoyed your article on Public Health and Petroleum, posted on today's Energy Bulletin net.

I live in Philadelphia and I have a website that might interest you, devoted mainly to Peak Oil but also related issues - at http://mysite.verizon.net/vze495hz/-- there's an article on "Fossil Fuels and Modern Medicine," another on Jay Hanson, and other various topics. I will need to print out your article to read it with more concentration. A quick reading this morning only brought forth from me an objection to a related issue, not the main topic of your paper, relating to Darwinism and Creationism. I have lately become very interested in the Intelligent Design issue, and certainly the idea that intelligence is embedded in natural processes, and that it takes intelligence to understand them, is fundamental to Western science and philosophy. I believe that Darwinism, whatever validity it may have as science (and I think it does have some validity in terms of micro-evolutionary processes) has basically become a type of secular ideology that supports the complacency and dumbing-down that seems nearly universal in America. I have no other explanation for the almost total refusal on the part of American people and their leaders to face the consequences of fossil-fuel depletion. A Darwinian explanation for life, that is one of random or mindless process, and so easily corrupted into the "rule of the strong" would seem to suit our present "Might makes right' crowd to a T. As I see it, therefore, Darwinism has basically ceased to be an issue of science and has become instead a matter of ideology and the justification of power (and self-serving blindness). This is just an aside, and perhaps not highly relevant, to your excellent article. I look forward to a closer and more detailed reading of it.

Sincerely,

Caryl Johnston

 

Caryl,

Thanks for your reply and comments. I stand by what I said, but let me not be so dogmatic. If given a few days I can assmeble for you a list of authors who totally expose ID as nothing more than religion, a termination of science not an exercise in it. Let me know if you want this list. Essentailly, every persumed "inexplicable" of natural selection has been explained --minus a few details. If it's important to believe some Intelligence made us, fine, believe that; but you'll never develop a vaccine from that belief; for that you've got to turn to Darwin, a man who struggled mightily with religion and wound up an agnostic.

also, at some risk to insulting you --but please take this as a gentle confrontation only-- the notion that Darwinism is "might makes right" is erroneous. Darwin has many interpreters from Gould to Dawkins and many more. I'm not an expert but know enough to categorially say that life exists in exhange with other forms of life --see Gaia hypothesis. Ther's a striving for balance that is never really achieved. But there is nothing in Darwin about the strong eliminating the weak. That's a misunderstanding by those who want to feel good about doing this. In fact, if the environment changes the so-called weak may become the most advantageous to survive --so are they then the "strongest"?

I will look at your website. Also I am building a nationwide newtork/consortium around publis health & peak oil. This is one area where citizens stil have a chance to be effective --and maybe save some lives when things get bad.

Please keep in touch on this; it's going to become critical in the next few years as weslide down Hubbert's peak.

D......

 

From: Caryl Johnston To: D.B. Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 12:36 PM Subject: Re: Public Health in a Post-Petroleum World

Hi D.....

Many thanks for your kind and detailled reply. I certainly would be interested in reading your list of anti-ID sources. Although I have to wonder, have you read Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" or Michael Denton's "Evolution, A theory in crisis"? It seems only fair that you should also be cognizant of the pro-ID side. Concerning Darwin's agnosticism: there is much more nuance here than is apparent in some of his followers. I do not deny the Darwinian effects in microevolution and in the development of vaccines. Darwinian principles can certainly be discerned in matters such as antibiotic resistance, etc.

I only question certain Darwinian principles in macroevolution - something that many Darwinian biologists have also questioned. Apparently, there is little evidence that one species can 'change" into another.

You are right, I was overly simplistic about the "Might makes right" argument-- which is why I noted that it was "easily corrupted." Nevertheless, it has to be said that Darwinism has spawned a number of morally corrupt ideas. Charles Darwin himself would have probably been horrified - he was known to be a most scruplous and honorable man, a real gentleman in every particular, and very devoted to his wife, who was a sincere Christian.

Best,

Caryl

REPLY from D.B.:

Caryl,

i come from a religious background and am familiar with Behe and the evolution in crisis notion. They are simply wrong, even worse they are frauds preomoting ignorance that is, in this day and age in a complex society dangerous. Their "arguments" are just refried Creationism. You are a well educated person so let me guess that you have a metaphysical attraction to ID. I just don't see it; have you read Gould's Mismeasure of Man? or gone to the Skeptics society webpage? I'll send along the notes as promised next week.

It does come down to what one will count as proof. If you insist that every single lacune in the Darwinian understanding is an indication of "God in the gaps", then that's what it is. But think of what Copernicus faced.

D..............

 

TWO DAYS LATER:

Caryl:

As promised, some lesser known but, to me, persuasive explanations of ID.

Best,

D.............

1. Why intelligent design fails [electronic resource] : a scientific critique of the new creationism / edited by Matt Young and Taner Edis.

2. The cosmic landscape : string theory and the illusion of intelligent design / Leonard Susskind

3. Creationism's Trojan horse : the wedge of intelligent design / by Barbara Forrest & Paul R. Gross.

4. (Teleology) God, the devil, and Darwin : a critique of intelligent design theory / Niall Shanks.

ALSO: Spirit in the Gene, by Reg Morrison.

CARYL’S REPLY:

From: Caryl Johnston To: D.B. Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:40 PM Subject: Re: ID

Hi D....... -

Thanks for remembering to send this. I will have to say that I am surprised by these sources - by  how few they are and frankly also by their very dubious quality. Barbara Forrest testified at the Dover trial and she is known to engage in totally ad hominen attack. She is not a scientist but has a pronounced and biased anti-Christian agenda. I read and reviewed Greg Morrison's "Spirit in the Gene," but later removed my review of this book from my website. Perhaps if I dig up a digital copy of my review I could send it to you. I was not impressed by the quality of his arguments, which veered from certain positive aspects of the Gaia hypothesis into what seemed to me wild and unwarranted conclusions.

Nevertheless, time permitting, I will certainly investigate the other sources and will post reponses to my  Intelligent Design sub-website - again, time permitting. I do thank you for sending me these sources.

Cordially,

Caryl Johnston

PS. You might find my article, "Concerning Jay Hanson and dieoff.com" of interest - posted on my website.

D.'S REPLY, JANUARY 30TH:

Caryl,

If you think these are dubious sources and you keep raising the Chirstian card --which has nothing to do with science-- then you're a confirmed anti-scientist --and probably a conflicted Bible-thumper at heart. So Praise the lord but don't pretend you're concerned about science. You're up to your eyeballs in religious fervor and Ignorant Denial.

Sorry, but that's how I deal with people who insist the sky is green.

D..........