Wedge issues
An intelligent discussion with Intelligent Design's designer
By Nancy R. Pearcey

    It's not only in politics that leaders forge movements. Phillip
Johnson has developed what is called the "Intelligent Design" movement, which
contends that time plus chance (the mechanism for change in Darwinism)
could not bring about the complex order of life around us. Mr. Johnson is
a Berkeley law professor who, spurred by the crisis of a failed marriage,
converted to Christianity in midlife. He has written many books including,
most recently, The Wedge of Truth.

Q: You tell of a young man who went to Harvard and lost his Christian
faith. Why is this an all-too-common story?

A: Every course this young man took at Harvard was based on the assumption
of naturalistic philosophy-the idea that everything is governed by chance
and natural law-so that even if God existed, He would be incapable of
doing anything. God's existence was not so much disproved as rendered
irrelevant to everything worth studying.

Q: The crucial prop for naturalism is Darwinism. What's the cutting-edge
issue in evolution today?

A: The debate centers on one fundamental issue: Are natural forces
information-creating? Any text, whether a book or the DNA code, requires a
complex, non-repeating arrangement of letters. Can that kind of order be
produced by chance or law? The answer is no. Chance produces randomness,
while physical law produces simple, repetitive order (like using a macro
on your computer to print a phrase over and over). The only thing that
produces complex, non-repeating, specified order is an intelligent agent.

Q: What happens when Darwinism is applied outside science itself-to social
life and morality?

A: The field of evolutionary psychology applies Darwinism to human
behavior, and the results are grim. The logical conclusion of Darwinism is that all
our actions are the results of brain states produced by some combination
of chance and physical law-which undermines the very notion of moral
choice. So arch-Darwinian Richard Dawkins says we are merely "robots"
programmed by DNA to make more DNA.

Q: What does Darwinism imply for the science of the mind?

A: Consistent Darwinists say there is no single, central "self," residing
somehow within the body, that makes decisions, holds opinions, loves, and
hates. That's dismissed as old-fashioned dualism. In the currently popular
"computational" theory, the mind is a set of computers that solve specific
problems forwarded by the senses. For example, Steven Pinker of MIT says
the idea of a unified self is merely a useful illusion, selected by
evolution because our body needs to be able to go one direction at a time.
 

Q: Computers function without consciousness. If the mind is a computer,
why are we conscious beings?

A: Some neuroscientists say we aren't-that consciousness is an illusion.
Philosopher Paul Churchland says mental states do not exist, and suggests
that we replace language about beliefs and desires with statements about
the nervous system's physical mechanisms-the activation of neurons and so
on.

This conclusion is so contrary to ordinary experience that many
neuroscientists search for some cut-off point where the logic of Darwinism
does not apply. But, of course, any stopping point is completely
arbitrary. John Searle, my famous colleague here at Berkeley, accepts
naturalistic evolution while insisting that it cannot explain the human
mind. Critics say he simply jumps ship, and they're right.

Q: Your book says the key issue is the definition of knowledge itself.

A: The prevailing definition of knowledge rests on the so-called
fact/value distinction. "Facts" are objective, rational, and true for everyone;
"values" are personal, subjective, and valid only for believers. Real knowledge can
be had only of "facts." That's why Darwinian evolution is permitted in the
science classroom, where we teach knowledge. But creation is relegated to
the comparative religion class, where we explore people's subjective
beliefs.

Q: It seems that even those with Christian belief may hold correct
doctrines but treat them as meaningful only within a community of faith.

A: The typical tactic is to cede to science the authority to determine the
"facts," then try to salvage some area for Christian faith in the realm of
"value." But since "values" are not granted the status of genuine
knowledge, what you put there is eventually dismissed as subjective
fantasy. Christians need to insist that they are making genuine knowledge
claims. I like to put it this way: Is there any "-ology" in theology? Are
we studying anything real?
 

Copyright 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 WORLD Magazine.
mailbag@worldmag.com