Phillip Johnson and Evolution

The Intelligent Design movement wouldn't exist today without the efforts and influence of Phillip Johnson, a retired lawyer who decided that cultural and political secularism could be combatted through the development of a new form of creationism. If you listen closely to what he says, you'll notice him admitting that his agenda is culture, not science.

The July/August 2000 issue of Church & State explains:

Intelligent Design’s unofficial leader is Phillip Johnson. In 1993, he published Darwin on Trial, in which he argues that evolution is more “philosophy” than science. Since then, Johnson has gone on to become one of the nation’s most aggressive critics of evolutionary biology. Evolution. he says, is “awful science” and “naturalistic mythology.” In an August 1999 debate, he said, “Evolution is not just a scientific theory, but a culturally dominant and legally protected creation myth that puts God effectively out of reality.”

As a rule, Johnson focuses attention on undermining evolution with scientific-sounding criticisms, despite not being a scientist himself. Rarely using religion to attack science, he generally says he merely wants academic discussion that presents a more complete scientific picture of life’s origins.

Phillip Johnson probably does sincerely believe that evolution is more philosophy than science; this would explain why he developed an alternative that isn’t science itself. Unfortunately for him, it also isn’t very good philosophy, either. Evolution only “puts God... out of reality” for a limited number of conservative Christians who are unable to understand their religious traditions and scriptures in anything other than the most literalistic and narrow-minded manner. This encompasses too many Christians, it is true, but it certainly doesn’t encompass all of them.

It’s also possible that Phillip Johnson sincerely wants an academic discussion of evolutionary theory; I don’t believe, however, that he has a good grasp of what an “academic discussion” in the sciences entails. I also doubt that he has a good grasp of what science really is, for that matter. If he did, he’d be forced to either abandon his Intelligent Design agenda or proceed with it on a wholly dishonest basis — because dishonesty is the only means for defending Intelligent Design when one comprehends science and the scientific method.

 

Read More:

• Evolution vs. Creationism
• Science vs. Religion
• What is Creationism?
• What is Intelligent Design?
• What is Science?