POWRÓTInterview with Phillip E. Johnson
This interview was conducted via e-mail during the week of August 14, 2000.
1. How would you describe the main purpose of The Wedge of Truth in comparison to your other books?
Each of my books builds upon the logic that was erected in my previous
ones. My prior books argued that the real discoveries of science
as
opposed to the materialist philosophy that has been imposed upon science
- point straight towards the reality of intelligent causes in biology.
When
you realize that fact, then you are ready to recognize that there are
two definitions of "science" in our culture. One definition says
that
scientists follow the evidence regardless of the philosophy; the other
says that scientists must follow the (materialist) philosophy regardless
of the evidence. The "Wedge of Truth" is driven between those two definitions,
and enables people to recognize that "In the beginning was
the Word" is as true scientifically as it is in every other respect.
From that starting point, I go on to discuss the major scientific and cultural
questions that ought to be on the table for discussion. The Wedge
of Truth is most like my previous book Reason in the Balance - but written
with the advantage of 5 more years of reading and discussion.
2. In the June 1992 edition of Scientific
American, Stephen Jay Gould attacked your book Darwin on Trial (as well
as you personally) by saying
that a lawyer, "cannot simply trot out some applicable criteria from
his own world and falsely condemn us from a mixture of ignorance and
inappropriateness." How would you respond and how do you feel
The Wedge of Truth addresses this, and similar criticisms?
Biologists deserve respect when they tell us what they know as biologists.
But when biologists presume to tell us what philosophical
concepts we must accept, they have stepped far outside of their legitimate
expert role. At that point outside critics must step in to separate
the
genuine biology from the philosophical prejudice. What Stephen
Jay Gould describes as criteria from the legal world are actually fundamental
logical principles that must be applied in all fields of study, including
evolutionary science.
3. Many scientists, Christian and otherwise, argue that evolution could simply be the way God chose to create the world. How do you respond?
God could create however he wished to create. But the modern,
neo-Darwinistic theory of evolution says that God was limited by
naturalistic philosophy, and would not dare to do anything that our
current rules of science do not permit. The absence of God is a necessary
presupposition of Darwinism. If we assume that God was always
there, ready and willing to create, then we would never entertain such
an absurd
idea as that the peppered-moth experiment tells us something significant
about how God actually did create.
4. What is the hardest thing about being Phillip Johnson?
Living up to the expectations of my dear friends and supporters.
The more you accomplish, the more is expected from you. But I enjoy
the struggle
immensely, and thank God that I was given this calling.
5. Why do you think the general public
is so willing to believe anything that the "scientific elite" says?
Is it because they are so
impressed with the mystery that enshrouds the halls of academia or
is there a deeper issue at work?
There is a deeper issue, and I explain it in The Wedge of Truth.
The sad story is that denying the true God is often the starting point
for human
wisdom. We do not wish to honor the true God, and so we turn
from the creator to created things, including idols of the mind like the
theory of
evolution. Of course secular universities are tempted that way,
but the sad thing is that similar inclinations are widespread in the Christian
academic world, and in the bureaucracies of the mainstream denominations.
6. How did you enter this debate in the first place?
As an adult convert to Christ, already an established professor at Berkeley,
I knew that most intellectuals are either agnostic or very
liberal in religion. They assume that a Christian (in the traditional
sense) must be somebody who has thrown his brains out the window for some
emotional reason. The primary reason they are so confident in
that judgment is that they believe science has demonstrated that an unguided
natural process is our true creator. When I was on sabbatical
leave in London in 1988, I had time to read the literature of Darwinism
and
discovered that the theory is founded upon the very same naturalistic
assumptions which it supposedly validates. I also discovered that
the
literature of evolutionary science is replete with circular reasoning,
hidden assumptions, wild extrapolations, and biased treatment of
evidence. I realized that I was dealing not with a true scientific
theory but with a creation myth backed by pseudoscience. I wanted
to tell the
world what I had learned - and so I wrote Darwin on Trial and have
gone on from there.
7. What are some of the major issues at stake in the debate over naturalism?
The most important question is whether God is real or imaginary.
Did God create man or did man create God? The latter is the teaching
of
evolutionary naturalism, and even many Christian thinkers tacitly assume
that position. In Chapter Four of The Wedge of Truth I ask whether
theology has any access to knowledge - as opposed to being mere subjective
belief. These are some of the most important intellectual questions
of
our time, and also of all other times.
8. Is debate even being allowed? If so, in what format and how is it being received?
There is fierce resistance. For example, we had a conference at
Baylor University in April 2000 to discuss whether the evidence of nature
points
towards or away from the need for a supernatural creator. It
was probably the most distinguished conference in Baylor history, with
two Nobel Prize
winners and many of the country's most distinguished professors in
science, philosophy, and history. The conference so frightened the
Baylor
faculty that they demanded that the sponsoring Institute be shut down
at once to make sure that nothing of that kind ever happened again!
Baylor
is a Baptist University, by the way, that advertises itself to prospective
students as providing a Christian education. On the issue of naturalism
the university world is totally closed-minded and fearful. The
nominally Christian institutions are particularly fearful because they
are
understandably worried that they will be accused of betraying their
heritage and advertising themselves falsely. But the truth
will
eventually wear them down.
9. What has been the response of the Christian community to your work? The secular community?
I am extremely controversial (or even dismissed out of hand) in the
Christian academic community, and in the moderate-to-liberal mainstream
denominations like the PC-USA (to which I belong). I draw huge
audiences at conservative churches and seminaries, and also at secular
universities. Students are fascinated by the topic of origins,
and want to hear something more substantial than the propaganda they get
in their
classes. The most peculiar reaction is the hostility which I
encounter from many professors at Christian colleges and seminaries. You
would be
amazed if I gave a list of the evangelical institutions that don't
want me on campus! This is not because I am unpopular there,
but because my
message is too well received for the comfort level of certain influential
professors. I am raising a question that the accommodationist professors
had hoped would be buried forever, and they are extremely embarrassed
when students start asking them the tough questions about evolution and
naturalism. But everyone who steps out on behalf of the truth
encounters bitter opposition like that, in the church as well as in the
secular
world.
10. Richard Dawkins is quoted as saying that
science is not a religion because it, "is free from the main vice of religion,
which is faith." How
would you respond to this? How do you believe The Wedge of Truth
will equip Christians to respond to statements like this?
Dawkins has faith in metaphysical materialism. Absent that faith,
it would be obvious to him (as it is to me) that the Darwinian "blind
watchmaker" mechanism has no creative power. Everybody starts
from faith, just as every house has a foundation. The question is
not whether you
will build upon a foundation, but whether you will build upon a foundation
of rock or upon a foundation of sand.
11. If someone were interested in entering the
discussion about naturalism / Darwinism, besides The Wedge of Truth, what
books would you
recommend they read?
Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box
William Dembski, Intelligent Design
Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution - (street date: October 2000)
Oryginal:
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/dpep/interview.pl/16559901?sku=22674
http://www.discovery.org/embeddedRecentArticles.php3?id=461