You say that your beef with Intelligent Design boils down to this: that it is philosophy posing as science. What do you think is the proper relationship of philosophy to science? If you could also throw in a working definition of each (philosophy and science), I think that would really clarify things for me.

I’m somewhat of a latecomer to your blog, as may already be obvious. Forgive me if you’ve discussed this elsewhere, and just point me to a link (the same goes for the questions I’ve asked above), but in what sense do you think that this country is falling behind in the science arena?

I think some of the AgnosticMom readers believe in an Intelligent Designer of some sort, a Prime Mover, a Supreme but undefined Being, but are not religious. They don’t believe that any religion or book or person knows anything about this Intelligence.

I have no problems whatsoever with a person believing in Intelligent Design. In fact, I understand it. Sometimes when I read to my children the book I blogged about, The Tree of Life, I wonder at how this could happen without some divine help. The difference for me, is I then think how unfathomable it is that there could be such a thing as divine help. And even if there were, what does it have to do with me? What does it matter? I want to focus on what I know, which is that we all experience pain and pleasure, misery and joy. I will do what I can to decrease the pain and increase the joy.

My only beef with Intelligent Design, is trying to pass it off as science, which it is not. It is philosophy. The United States is in a crisis situation, among other reasons, because we are falling farther behind in the science arena. To go backwards by changing the definition of science in order to make it more compatible with religion would push us down to the bottom of the rung.

Ben: if you believe in an Intelligent Creator who orders the universe, but do not follow religious doctrine, you could fit in very nicely here. Of course, everyone is welcome.

If we can set Johnson slightly aside for a moment, your last comment sparked this question: Do you think that it’s essentially a religious position to hold that an intelligence created and/or orders the universe?

If a person wants to make personal life decisions based on religious belief, it’s all good with me. Once decisions extend to the public arena, we must base them on rational thought, reasoning, and material observation. Not on the Bible. Not on Jesus. Johnson is scary and dangerous because he wants to overthrow material observation and reasoning, even when it comes to science and education.

“I was just alarmed when I noticed that your blog entry on Johnson seemed to depend primarily on Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia, but would hesitate to rely on it for much useful information.”

In the midst of all the articles I read, I found that Wikipedia had everything I wanted right there. And because it links to many different sources itself, I just thought it easy to use it completely. Lesson learned!

Touchstone, a conservative Christian journal, conducted the interview you asked about it. You can read it at:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/15.5docs/15-5pg40.html

I think you’ll like the interview. It is pretty comprehensive. He is well-educated, but I disagree with his premise, which is that Jesus must be the starting point for all knowledge.

One purpose of reading them would be to hear his arguments as he has expressed them, and in their entirety. Whether he’s right or wrong is not my point here. I’m just interested in intellectual honesty. It’s hard to debate someone you’ve never listened to.

Agnostic Mom: thank you for your gracious response. I’m very impressed by your willingness to check sources and admit an inaccuracy.

I’m sure you’ve researched this topic far more thoroughly than I have — I was just alarmed when I noticed that your blog entry on Johnson seemed to depend primarily on Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia, but would hesitate to rely on it for much useful information relating to a topic that has so much emotional and political significance.

Please post the link to the Johnson interview you just mentioned; I would like to read it. A thoughtful and learned man that I know well and whose ideas I tend to trust once interviewed Johnson as well. Having a bit of the old OCD in him, too, he probably read everything Johnson wrote, before the interview. After all that, he came away favorably impressed. So now I want to learn more.