Several years ago, I invited Dr. Phillip Johnson,a staunch adversary of macro-evolution and a law professor for overthirty years at the University of Berkeley, to attend one of ourregional preachers' meetings as a guest speaker. On the appointed dayin a local restaurant while we sat around a large table, I presenteda question about "evolution and creationism."
What remains clearly etched in my mind is hisdiscourse on the danger of speaking about "evolution andcreationism." For creationists to frame the subject in this manner,he said, automatically places the creationist at a disadvantagebecause he is defending an "-ism." Perhaps his comment might seem abit nit picky, but how comfortable would an evolutionist be indiscussing creation and evolutionism?
Dr. Johnson recommended that in order to engage ina discussion of origins without verbal bias, we need to speak about"evolution and creation." Or if someone prefers, "evolutionism andcreationism" would also maintain an evenhanded approach.
You may be aware that the controversy regardingwhat should be taught in our public schools regarding origins hassurfaced again. At the heart of the storm is Dr. Johnson'sIntelligent Design movement which advocates that scientific evidencepoints to a Designer, not randomness.
Did you know that Dr. Johnson was not always soadamantly opposed to macro-evolution? He describes himself asbeing raised a nominal Christian but then "I went to Harvard andassumed I was leaving all that behind. I had every intention ofsimply adopting the Harvard philosphy, which was secular, pragmatic,and rational, because that's what you do did if you wanted to be abig deal."1 He descibes the next phase of his life as "I became anominal agnostic."2 What could cause a Harvard and University ofChicago Law School trained professor to reevaluate his thinking aboutevolution?
In his own words,
"I wanted to know whether the fundamentals of the Christian worldview were fact or fantasy. Darwinism is a logical place to begin because, if Darwinism is true, Christian metaphysics is fantasy. That's why it's so marginalized and is considered to be of no intellectual interest."3
His opportunity to study Darwinism in more deptharrived in the academic year of 1987 -1988 while he was on asabbatical in London.4
"It was immensely interesting to discover that it's all circular reasoning, deception and pseudo-science. ... It is a pseudo-science that simply works for confirming examples of a materialist philosophical system that's held up by a priori grids."5"The first book I read while on sabbatical was Dawkin's Blind Watchmaker, which seemed fairly convincing on the first reading but full of holes on the second."6
"But perhaps the greatest 'Aha!" moment came when I was browsing in a bookstore in London with my wife. ... She picked up a copy of Isaac Asimov's Guide to Science ... there was a brief description of the theory, plus three pages of heavy-handed ad hominem denunciation of creationists for not accepting the absolute truth of this theory that was so obvious to all thinking persons. Then there was a brief scetion called 'Proof of Evolution,' in which the entire proof - all the proof that Asimov thought was necessary-was the peppered moth experiment. ... Such experiences have been repeated many times.
The ignorance that's involved, the indifference to the facts, is stunning. Anything that promotes the 'Great Darwin" and the materialist understanding is uncritically received, unless it does something that's politically incorrect.
In short, my discovery that the reasoning in Darwinism is unscientific, illogical, and dishonest was tremendously important to me because it validates that 'In the beginnning was the Word' is really the correct starting point."7
Barry Newton, Copyright © 2005
1 "Berkeley's Radical: An Interview with PhillipE. Johnson," Touchstone (June 2002), p. 37,38
2 Ibid., p. 38
3 Ibid., p. 40
4 Phililip E. Johnson, Objections Sustained(IVP: 1998), p. 9.
5 "Berkeley's Radical," p. 40.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
Other Articles Which Might Be ofInterest
The Origin of Life According to Evolution (An Evaluation of the Reductive Atmospheric Model for the Synthesis of Amino Acids)
[an error occurred while processing this directive]