I am glad that FIRST THINGS asked Edward T. Oakes to review my book The
Wedge of Truth (January) because I have admired his essays. Moreover, there
are a number of compliments in the review for which I thank him. Hence I
write not to complain, but rather to clarify. I fear that the review may
give the impression that the differences between us are greater than they
are.

  First, I agree that merely recognizing the reality of a Designer in
nature does not tell us whether the Designer is benevolent or cares about
what we do. That is why special revelation is also indispensable, beginning
with the opening verses of the Gospel of John. This important text states
specifically that creation is by the Word, the same Word that became flesh
and dwelt among us. I do not know why Father Oakes thought it appropriate
to ridicule my citation of this Gospel. Although there is no reference to a
"Holy Arranger" or "Celestial Cell Constructor," John 1:3 does say that
"all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made
that was made."

  The critique of Darwinism is important not because Intelligent Design
theory tells us about the character of God--it doesn't. The problem is that
so many educated people take the supposed success of Darwinian science as a
proof of the materialist metaphysics upon which the theory is based. Given
this widespread misunderstanding, secular intellectuals generally assume
that texts such as John 1:1-14 express a prescientific mythology that
modern people cannot take seriously. This is also why it is not sufficient
merely to insist that there is a distinction between science and
materialism, unless we can explain where the line is to be drawn.
Otherwise, materialists like Stephen Jay Gould will do the line-drawing for
us. They will put all objective knowledge in the realm of science, and
leave to religion only subjective belief.

  That the materialists have been making the rules also explains why the
secular journalists interpreted the Pope's statement on evolution as they
did. I have the greatest respect for John Paul II, and have consistently
defended his statement by explaining the importance of the crucial
qualifying sentence that the reporters fail to quote. ("Theories of
evolution [that], in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them,
consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a
mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about
man.") However, I also have to be fair to the reporters who misconstrued
it. A philosopher with a fine Catholic education would understand the
Pope's meaning, but a secular reporter, educated to see religion as always
grudgingly retreating before the advance of science, could only be expected
to read the statement as another reluctant concession.

  I particularly appreciate Fr. Oakes' opening reference to John Henry
Newman's description of the "favorite rhetorical trick" of secular
intellectuals, especially scientific materialists. "They persuade the world
of what is false, by urging upon it what is true." Indeed they do. But why
has the trick worked so well for so long, and why have Christian
intellectuals not been more effective in exposing the rhetorical
sleight-of-hand? They must be misunderstanding something, and that
something is the subject of The Wedge of Truth.

  Phillip E. Johnson Boalt Hall, School of Law University of California at Berkeley

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  In his review of Phillip E. Johnson's excellent The Wedge of Truth Edward
T. Oakes is correct that the argument to design does not get one to a
supernatural designer, let alone to the merciful God that Christians
confess. That's appropriate, since our faith is based on the living works
and teachings of Jesus--not on some laboratory experiment. Still, the
design inference seems to have a lot more punch than Father Oakes allows,
at least as judged by the reaction of many who oppose it. It has been my
experience (and I have some) that Fr. Oakes' materialist rogues' gallery,
and their many colleagues, bitterly attack even the most tentative
suggestion of design in biology. Hume's assurance that the design argument
does not reach all the way to the God of Scripture softens them not a bit.

  On the other hand, the theistic claim that natural selection was God's
way of creating life (sort of) doesn't vex evangelical materialists much at
all. Why not? Perhaps they are being philosophically unsophisticated, and
will pay the price in lost prestige when the writings of Cardinal Newman
become more widely known. Or maybe they can recognize the kinds of
arguments that do and do not reach people (especially academic types) in
our science-soaked culture.

  The inference to biological design is a modest argument that doesn't
penetrate to the mysteries of our faith. Yet it has its uses. In some
cases, for some people, it can suggest that the world may be more complex
than they had been led to believe. If the data support the design
inference, as I am convinced they do, Christians would be neglectful not to
point it out.

  Michael J. Behe Department of Biology Lehigh University Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  I was disappointed to read Edward T. Oakes' review of Phillip E.
Johnson's The Wedge of Truth. He faults Johnson's logic in making a
transition from the argument from design to a chapter on the Logos of John
1:1. Father Oakes describes this as "a strange segue from information
theory to theology." In fact, it is not at all strange, given the analogy
that Fr. Oakes himself uses in his review. Suppose, he says, that Robinson
Crusoe came across a circle of stones around some ashes. Crusoe could
probably infer the existence of an intelligence that arranged the stones
and lit the fire, but he would not know whether the agent's intentions were
benign or hostile. Fr. Oakes uses the analogy to show the limitations of
the argument from design as a theological starting point, but he then
mistakenly assumes that it is for that reason that Johnson appeals to the
Logos of John 1:1 as, so to speak, a deus ex machina. Instead, to pursue
the Crusoe analogy, suppose it was not at all obvious (or at least was
still hotly contested) that the stones had been arranged by an intelligent
agent. Would it not be admissible evidence to point to an Army manual for
shipwrecked sailors that recommended building a circle of stones and
lighting a fire in it? As scientists dispute the question of whether the
record of life on this planet can be plausibly explained apart from some
kind of intelligent source for its high information content, the
relationship between information theory and theology is hardly inapposite.

  Following Newman, whom he quotes ("I believe in design because I believe
in God, not in a God became I see design"), Fr. Oakes is free to remain
skeptical of the value of the argument from design as a strategic matter.
But it is something yet again to suggest that there is a logical impediment
to making it.

  David K. DeWolf Professor of Law Gonzaga Law School Spokane, Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  I was disappointed by Edward T. Oakes' review of The Wedge of Truth by
Phillip E. Johnson. Father Oakes seems to have committed a logical error,
occasioned by his use of Cardinal Newman's aphorism, "I believe in design
because I believe in God, not in a God because I see design." Johnson
clearly does not believe in design simply became he believes in God--he
thinks, and I agree, that the design of the universe and of many living
things can be verified scientifically, without dependence on any special
theological presuppositions. Ergo, Fr. Oakes infers, Johnson must believe
in God simply became he sees design, and for no other reason.

  For those of us who are familiar with Johnson's work, this conclusion is
blatantly false. Fr. Oakes has committed the fallacy of the false dilemma,
erroneously assuming that the two parts of Newman's aphorism exhaust all
possibilities. It is a serious error (and an uncharitable one) to assume
that those of us who belong to the Intelligent Design movement think that
our belief in God depends on evidence for design. Many of us, Johnson
included, think no such thing. As Johnson has clearly stated, biology
informed by the recognition of intelligent design is "theism-friendly" in a
way that doctrinaire naturalism is not. The existence of verifiable design
is certainly compatible with theism (and with Christianity in particular),
and it certainly gives some support to theism. However, as Newman himself
recognized and articulated so brilliantly in The Grammar of Assent, the
reasonableness of theism in general and of Christianity in particular is
the result of the convergence of a large number of evidences and reasons,
of which design is only a part.

  In any event, Fr. Oakes' complaint seems to be, not with Phillip Johnson,
but with St. Thomas, who committed the blunder (by Fr. Oakes' lights) of
including the argument from design as one of his five ways by which the
existence of God may be demonstrated.

  Robert C. Koons Department of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Though a warm admirer of both, I wish Edward T. Oakes had not quarreled
with Phillip E. Johnson. His principal charge seems to be that Intelligent
Design, being but half a gospel, is a false gospel. Yes, of course Cardinal
Newman was right that design teaches us only the power, skill, and goodness
of the Creator, not His sanctity, mercy, or future judgment. But why flog
Johnson with such quotes when he agrees? He never claims that general
revelation can prove the additional and indispensable truths of special
revelation; he only claims that rejection of the former prevents reception
of the latter. If you say "There is no God," you certainly won't ask "Is He
a God of mercy?" If you say "There is no Meaning," you certainly won't ask
"Has the Meaning become flesh and dwelt among us?" That is the situation in
the academy.

  J. Budziszewski Departments of Government and Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  The review of Phillip E. Johnson's book The Wedge of Truth by Edward T.
Oakes shows that the reviewer does not understand the concept of
irreducible complexity without which the Intelligent Design movement cannot
be understood.

  Father Oakes does not see the issue involved in the distinction between
micro- and macroevolution. The issue is this: the incapacity of random
mutation and natural selection to account for the creation of new complex
genetic information.

  Fr. Oakes has failed to critique the book for what it is and instead
condemns it for not being a systematic theology or a solution to the
problem of evil. His anxiety to defend John Paul II's statement on
evolution has resulted in a prejudiced and uncomprehending review quite
unworthy of FIRST THINGS.

  Keith Masson Portland, Oregon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  After reading Edward T. Oakes' patronizing review of Phillip E. Johnson's
The Wedge of Truth, I read the book and reread the review. It seems to me
that it is Father Oakes, not Johnson, who is grinding an axe.

  Fr. Oakes devotes more than half his review to deploring Johnson's
detection of intelligent design in biological species. But the quotation
from Newman that closes Fr. Oakes' review shows that he has distorted
Johnson's (and even Newman's) point. Newman wrote: "I believe in design
because I believe in God, not in a God because I see design." So does
Johnson. The quote supports Johnson, not Fr. Oakes. Newman indeed saw
design in nature, unlike Darwinists (and Fr. Oakes). Nowhere does Johnson
hint that design in nature grounds belief in God. He never appeals, as Fr.
Oakes implies by comparing him to William Paley, to apparent design in
biology as an "argument from design" to prove the existence of God.
Rather, because he already believes in God he is receptive to the possibility of
design in nature. His point, which Fr. Oakes distorts, is that there is no
scientific excuse summarily to dismiss as illusory the design that seems so
apparent. If Johnson chooses to speculate, on what he explicitly declares
to be philosophical grounds, that what looks like the design he finds there
is attributable to God, what is wrong with that, scientifically or
otherwise?

  Fr. Oakes also claims that Johnson has shifted his ground over the course
of his several books. As proof, he points to Johnson's statement that "if
nature is all there is, and matter had to do its own creating, then there
is every reason to believe that the Darwinian model is the best we will
ever have," and he calls the statement a "concession." How so? Those
initial qualifiers seem pretty significant and it has always been
Johnson's contention that they are false and have nothing to do with real science.

  Is it Fr. Oakes' view that the argument about design in biology is
neither final nor conclusive? Who says it is? Certainly not Johnson. But
it does raise and focus the proper questions. The most obvious explanation
for what happened in the biological world is intelligence. The materialist
must prove, rather than assume, that intelligence had nothing to do with it.

  Robert Ghelardi Oak Park, Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Edward T. Oakes misunderstands the structure of Phillip E. Johnson's
argument in The Wedge of Truth, and his tone of mockery is unseemly.
Father Oakes is correct in characterizing intelligent design as an update of the
design argument: it uncovers evidence of a Mind in the structure of living
things (especially the DNA code) and the physical universe (anthropic
"coincidences"). This is all in the spirit of Romans 1, which says that
certain of God's attributes are "clearly seen in what was made."

  But no one--not Paul in Romans nor Aquinas in his Five Ways nor
Intelligent Design theorists--supposes that arguments from nature lead
directly to the God of Scripture. They merely place a lower limit, so to
speak, on what kind of Creator may reasonably be proposed. That's why
Aquinas' arguments all end with the rather odd phrase, "to which everyone
gives the name 'God,'" or "and this we call 'God.'" He could have
concluded, "and therefore the God of Christianity exists," but he does
not.
Aquinas' point is that the human mind is ordered to its Creator; but he
does not assume a continuity from the God of philosophy to the God of
revelation. Likewise, Intelligent Design theorists meticulously note the
limits on what may be concluded from nature: the structure of living
things implies an intelligent agent, but it does not give grounds to identify who
that agent is.

  Having made the case for a generic intelligent agent, however, one may
then switch categories from science to apologetics, and propose the
biblical God as the best candidate, as Paul did in Acts 17 when he
proposed to tell the Athenians the identity of the "unknown god." Many have found
such apologetics persuasive. In How We Believe, Michael Shermer, president
of the Skeptics Society, describes a poll asking Americans why they
believe in God. The number one reason cited was some variation on the design
argument.
  Phillip Johnson stands squarely within a long Christian tradition in
identifying the Logos that orders the universe with the Logos of the
gospel.

  Nancy R. Pearcey The Discovery Institute Center for the Renewal of
Science and Culture Seattle, Washington

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Finally, at long last, some sense of sanity in the intelligent design
debate. Edward T. Oakes' review of Phillip E. Johnson's book is very
welcome, both because of its scientific lucidity, and its grounding in
Catholic sensibilities.

  Father Oakes rightly summarizes the objections to evolution as being
based not on science but on implicit philosophical assumptions attributed
to evolution by its critics. This often leads them, as Johnson did, to
lecture the Pope on what's wrong with Catholic theology.

  The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The acknowledgment of the
scientific basis for evolution by John Paul II is gratifying. And the
recognition that criticism of evolution is often based on philosophy, not
science, is very welcome.

  Thanks to Fr. Oakes, and to the editors of FIRST THINGS, for clearing
some of the fog.

  Bob Puharic Whitehall, Pennsylvania