Date:        Tue, 09 Jan 2001 13:41:46 -0800
From:        Phillip Johnson <philjohn@uclink4.berkeley.edu>
Letter to First Things
(unpublished)

To the Editors, First Things

I am glad that First Things asked Edward T. Oakes, S.J., to review _The
Wedge of Truth_, 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 Professor 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 pre-scientific mythology
that modern people cannot take seriously. This is also why it 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. 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 Professor Oakes's 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