Salt and light: Christian involvement in academia
David J. Tyler
[to be published in "Origins" (U.K.) in 2001]

Review of "Wedge of Truth"
Phillip E. Johnson
InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, 2000

Why is it that so many young people go into Higher Education and
emerge as agnostics or atheists?  Is it really a case of exposure to
truth - an experience that sweeps away the "childish mentality"
associated with a religious upbringing?  Many seem to view it like
this and consider that scholarship can liberate people to escape, as
they put it, from the superstition and ignorance on which religion
thrives.

Phillip Johnson begins his challenging book with the story of Philip
Wentworth, who went to Harvard University in 1924 to prepare himself
for the Christian ministry and ended up rejecting the faith that had
nurtured him.  Johnson shows that instead of examining the issues in a
scholarly way, Wentworth welcomed the critical environment that
enabled him to justify his desire to become a sceptic.  Far from his
educational experience helping him towards maturity of thought, it
undermined his ability to make a sound judgment.  According to
Johnson, Harvard did not help him to ask the right questions, nor to
find rigorous ways of answering those questions.

Johnson then takes up the theme of "asking the right questions" and
visits numerous topics demonstrating that the problem is widespread
among intellectuals.  The first example comes from evolutionary
biology.  Advocates of origins via incremental transformation point to
"change" as proof of the theory.  The real issue, however, concerns
the origin of biological information.  Where does it come from?  Do
evidences of "change" (as presented in the textbooks, for example)
cast light on increases in information and the origins of complexity?
An incident in the life of Richard Dawkins reveals him protesting
against the right questions being asked.  In a recent book, Paul
Davies correctly puts his finger on the information challenge
necessary to address when thinking about "the origin of life", but
then he pulls back from the revolutionary implications of his own
logic.  Davies started well in asking the right questions, but
stumbled when he came to answering them.

Surveys of the religious views of scientists reveal that many
scientists do not consider science neutral about religious matters.
Some others will say that religion occupies a distinct and separate
domain from science, but this position leaves room only for deism and
existentialism (definitely not biblical Christianity).  The key
question here is: "Does theology provide any objective knowledge?"  If
the answer is "Yes" (and all biblical Christians agree that God has
revealed truth and that there is a source of authority outside of
science), then there is a tension between the basic tenets of
Christianity and the widely held view of what constitutes science.
Johnson's chapter on this subject provides an important challenge for
Christians to engage with contemporary culture.  "If theologians are
unwilling or unable to challenge the materialist definition of
"knowledge" implicit in evolutionary science, then they deserve no
more cognitive status than Gould or Dawkins are willing to give them"
(p.103).

In his chapter on "Darwinism of the mind", Johnson examines the views
of some intellectual gatekeepers in the sciences of humanity:
cognitive psychology and the neurosciences.  Dawkins' views on selfish
genes and ourselves as robot survival machines are discussed.  But
when Dawkins advocates a robot rebellion, for us to "upset" the
designs of our selfish genes, Johnson concludes that "this is both
scientifically absurd and morally na=EFve." (p. 107).  This leads on to
a discussion of memes, of the way Steven Pinker has attempted to
handle infanticide using evolutionary psychology, and several other
current issues.  The key question in this area is "Is the thinking,
choosing self an illusion?"  The dominant response in the intellectual
world is to answer "Yes".  Johnson concludes by throwing down the
gauntlet: "It is time for an effective challenge to this constricting,
authoritarian, self-contradictory ideology."  (p.124).

The world of scholarship has moved far from its roots.  Most
Christians appear to be unaware of the mindset of today's intellectual
leaders.  According to Johnson, academia has moved beyond atheism.  It
is not even important to people that they debate the existence of God.
 This is because knowledge is defined in naturalistic terms.
Consequently, if God exists, he must be subject to the laws of nature
and must be accessible to man's intellectual probing.  It is into this
marketplace of ideas that Christians must enter and find ways of
contributing confidently.

Clearly, Christians need to be involved in the debate about what
science is.  Progress with the discipline of science will make it much
easier to address related issues facing scholars in the humanities.
These debates are important for the intellectual health of these
different disciplines, because the present culture is increasingly
resistant to rational debate and more conducive to power struggles.
This degeneration is widespread.  Reason gets us from premises to
conclusions but it does not tell us what premises to rely on.
Modernists try to derive ultimate premises by reasoning from other
premises and they end up with circular arguments.  The Christian has a
better way.  Reason needs to build on a solid foundation of truth, and
this is exactly what God has given us by revealing Himself in Jesus
Christ and in the Scriptures.  Our starting point has been given us by
Solomon: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Proverbs
1:7).  In the latter chapters, Johnson presents his thoughts on what
this revealed foundation looks like.

This is an excellent book.  Anyone involved with the world of
scholarship, including students, will find benefit in thinking through
the varied issues presented.  Johnson has his finger on the pulse of
the debates he describes, and always has a refreshing and interesting
perspective to contribute.