Information Related to "Creation or Evolution:An Interview With Phillip Johnson"
| Audio/Video |
INTERVIEW:
Creation and Evolution
by Jerry Aust
The Good News: Concerning evolution and its effects on modern educational
systems, you mention intellectual superstition. What is that?
Phillip Johnson: What we get as science in the Darwinian theory of evolution
is not based on science. It's based on a prior commitment to materialism and philosophy.
Facts take second place to that philosophy, and therefore what we're getting is what
I call a materialist mythology. That's what I mean by intellectual superstition.
GN: As a lawyer and law professor, how did you become interested in
writing a book that analyzes Darwinism?
PJ: I was in England on sabbatical in 1987-88 and began reading on the subject.
I found it fascinating and began looking into it further. I found out many interesting
things. For example, some scientists at the British Natural History Museum were saying
things that were completely contrary to the Darwinian theory, and they were being
told to shut up and keep quiet. I looked into it to find out what was going on.
While there, I bought all kinds of scientific books and read the scientific journals
at the University of London, where I was a visiting professor. In retrospect, it's
perfectly logical that I should get into this subject, because fundamentally it's
all about the relationship between assumptions and proof. Specifically, people aren't
always forthright about their assumptions.
Evolutionary biologists state their assumptions as fact. They state their assumptions
emphatically, then treat them as proof. One of the first things I noticed was that
some evolutionary biologists I talked to couldn't appreciate the difference between
what they'd proved and what they'd only assumed. They didn't really understand the
difference. Thus I wrote Darwin on Trial, which is really a critique of bad
reasoning presented as legitimate science.
GN: Would you briefly identify the themes of your books Darwin on Trial,
Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism?
PJ: Darwin on Trial is my book on evolutionary science. It goes into
the scientific detail fairly thoroughly to show that the evidence is against the
theory (of evolution) at every point. This leads to the conclusion that what is driving
the evolutionary-science community is not the evidence but a philosophical position
that they endorse in spite of the evidence. So that's the book for people who want
to go deeply into the science of it.
The second book, Reason in the Balance, is mainly about the cultural implications
(of belief in evolution). It has several chapters on the scientific background, but
the main theme is to show that the philosophy behind Darwinian evolution--which is
materialism, or naturalism--has become in effect the established religion of our
country.
This has great consequences for subjects like law and ethics, because, if God is
dead and a mindless process of evolution is our true creator, then God's moral authority
is also dead. That means that all questions of value are up to us and we can change
the rules at any time that we like. So that's the foundation for the moral relativism
that we seek out throughout society.
The third book, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, is specifically addressed
to graduating high-school students, beginning college students and their parents
and teachers. It is basically intended to prepare these students for the kind of
indoctrination that they will receive in college, not only in the science curriculum
but throughout the curriculum.
They will be presented material which presupposes that nature is all there is, that
there has never been any supernatural influence from the ultimate beginning to the
present and that God belongs in the category of what they call religious belief,
which is to say subjective fantasy.
So this book is to prepare them for what they'll be hearing and to understand the
thinking behind it, because these subjects are not presented straightforwardly. The
professors don't say that they're going to convince you that naturalism is true;
they start out with that assumption and everything follows from there. You have to
understand where they're coming from to have an understanding of what's wrong with
this whole system.
GN: How will these high-school students, who are going into college,
be exposed to what you are saying about defeating Darwinism? Apart from discovering
your book, how can more people be made aware that modern education will automatically
teach them the effects of naturalism?
PJ: This is what families have to take responsibility for. The public-school
educators are not going to teach students something that undermines the philosophy
they're trying to inculcate in them, that they've been taught to believe themselves.
So it has to be a very high priority for Christian families to make sure that their
children learn.
This is one of the things that has energized the home-schooling movement to such
an extent. But it isn't necessary for parents to go that far. They can read up on
and learn these ideas themselves and make sure they're taught in the home or in church
or in some kind of educational, supplemental program.
The Christian community has all the resources it needs to do this kind of educating,
whether the public schools like it or not. The limitation here has been that the
parents and the ministers and the youth workers and teachers haven't understood the
issues. They have been misled to believe that the kind of secular education we're
receiving is compatible with a Christian belief system and that the theory of evolution
in particular is only about minor scientific matters that don't touch the larger
issues of life.
However, this is fundamentally untrue. So the real problem is that the parents, teachers,
youth workers and ministers--everybody--need to learn to understand this and develop
some kind of a program to communicate that to our young people. It's very much within
our resources; the problem is simply one of understanding.
GN: As a tenured professor in a major university, you've seen how the
commonly accepted educational belief system has been assumed as true by many academicians
and how this notion has had its affect on young students' minds.
PJ: It does, and it molds the thinking of the whole culture. What is really
insidious about it is that people don't realize that their thinking is being molded.
It comes in through the assumptions, and that's where the effective indoctrination
and propaganda work.
The way to put something across to people so that it gets into their minds is not
to tell them something straightforwardly, because then their defense is up. Then
they can recognize it and make counterarguments. What you do is to assume it and
smuggle it in in the unstated assumptions behind the stuff that you are teaching
on the surface. This is what occurs in the educational system, and this is what I
teach people to be able to spot.
GN: This approach you're taking is revolutionary, isn't it?
PJ: Yes, this is a peaceful, intellectual revolution.
GN: You advance the notion that 90 percent of Americans believe in
God.
PJ: They say they do. They'll answer a poll question that way. How deeply
that penetrates into their thinking is quite a different question. People answer
poll questions by giving the answer they think they are supposed to give. So you
have to do a lot of interpreting do get truthful results.
GN: This leaves us about 10 percent who, to some degree and on some
level, are agnostic or who at least promote naturalism, even unwittingly. Is it possible
that 10 percent can dominate the 90 percent in this area, and, if so, how?
PJ: Sure, they can, especially if they take the high ground, the high intellectual
ground. You see the education at every level. Government, lawmaking and all those
things presuppose the viewpoint of the 10 percent. Now, this is masked because the
viewpoint of the 10 percent is not inconsistent with religious belief.
So people can have a naturalistic worldview and accompany it with a lot of God
talk--that is to say their understanding is that God belongs in this category of
religious belief, and so, effectively, everybody has their own God. The whole thing
is part of their imaginative life. In their view, God is not real in the sense that
the theory of evolution is real, which is to say that it's taught as true for everybody.
Their view is that God is real if that idea works for you.
So that's the viewpoint on God which is taken throughout public life in the United
States, and it's why somebody can say with some sincerity I'm a very religious person
and yet they will have a fundamentally naturalistic understanding of what that means.
This kind of understanding is presupposed in public life, and that is why the idea
of tolerance has become central. In this way of thinking, true religion means that
you never interfere with somebody else's belief system and that all of these are
relative systems good only for the person who holds that belief, so government should
presuppose none of these beliefs.
That means, effectively, that the agnostic position--which says we have no knowledge
of God--becomes the neutral position which governs the country. This is what the
Supreme Court has effectively enacted and imposed in its religious-liberty decisions.
So, whether that is ever changed as a governmental matter, it's really important
for people to understand what is going on and why the laws have changed in the direction
that they have. That's the subject that I explained in Reason in the Balance.
I want people to realize that, although 90 percent of the country says they believe
in some sort of intelligent Creator, the opposite is what is being taught and proclaimed
as fact. It isn't because the evidence supports that, but because a small minority
believe in the power of blind chance and naturalistic forces.
Public education is no longer under public control. Now the teachers' unions, curriculum
planners and government officials have established control over education in general.
The public doesn't like a lot of what goes on in the schools, but they're told it's
none of their business.
GN: What plans do you have to get your information out to the public,
electronically or otherwise?
PJ: That's what I've written about in my latest book, Defeating Darwinism
by Opening Minds. That book really answers the question, especially in chapters
six and seven, where I explain what I call the web strategy. This is the building
of an intellectual movement and includes the combination of a strategy aimed at legitimating
the critique of evolutionary naturalism in the secular universities and in bringing
a common understanding of this issue to the Christian world.
GN: How would you like to see the subject of beginnings approached
in science classes?
PJ: First and foremost, the subject should be approached with honesty and
candor. I agree with the Darwinists that students should learn more about evolution.
The difference is that they want to indoctrinate students, and I want them to learn
the flaws in the theory. I want them to see why the fossil evidence is so inconsistent
with Darwinism and how they point to a few isolated examples and ignore everything
that doesn't fit their premise.
If science is going to deal with the question of whether there is a Creator, they
ought to openly and honestly deal with both sides of the issue rather than just one.
They say they stay away from religious issues, but that is false. They deal with
them constantly by trying to persuade people that there is no intelligent Creator
who had a hand in the creation, that purely physical, material mechanisms were the
only thing at work. They refuse to deal with all the compelling evidence for an active,
intelligent Creator.
GN: Regarding the Bible's view on truth vs. deception, Revelation 12:9
speaks of Satan, who deceives the whole world. In a much larger spiritual context,
could the biblical account of an unseen god of this world deceiving mankind fit into
this paradigm of naturalism, which you show undergirds and pervades our assumed educational
relativism?
PJ: Yes, it certainly does. However, I prefer not to go to the book of Revelation
because that makes a lot of people very nervous. When I'm speaking on this subject,
the scripture I prefer to start with is Romans 1:20-21, which states that since the
creation of the world, God's invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature,
have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made.
We see the reality of the created through the creation, but then we see that, even
though men knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became
futile in their speculations and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to
be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an
image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling
creatures.
So what the Bible is saying is that, to avoid the reality of a Creator, people have
exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather
than the Creator.
Evolution is another form of nature worship, which is what the Bible is talking about
here. It's a way of getting God out of the picture, by replacing the true God with
the god of the human imagination. The proposition is, effectively, that God didn't
create man. It's the other way around: Man created God out of human imagination.
Of course, what man has created man can command. That's the key point. So Romans 1:20-21, which bears this out, is the scripture that I prefer to emphasize.
GN: Are you ever able to use this scripture when arguing your points
with the scientific community?
PJ: When I'm speaking to a secular university and a scientific audience, I
stay completely away from anything to do with the Bible. In that context, the fact
that something is in the Bible is considered to be a reason not to believe in it.
You're not going to persuade those people with scriptures. That's the kind of subject
that comes up with a Christian audience, the ones who want to find out how this ties
in with the Scriptures. Unless some people have some initial respect for the Scriptures,
there's no point in trying to use it as an explanation.
GN: Thank you, Professor Johnson, for discussing with our readers the
subject of evolutionary naturalism, as it relates to our educational system, sound
reasoning, and Christian faith.
Phillip Johnson bio
Phillip Johnson is the Jefferson E. Peyser professor of law at the University of
California, Berkeley. He has written three books relating to the creation-evolution
debate: Darwin on Trial (second edition, Intervarsity Press, 1993); Reason
in the Balance (1995) and Defeating Darwinism (1997).
Dr. Johnson is a graduate of Harvard University (1961) and received his law degree
from the University of Chicago (1965). He was law clerk for California Chief Justice
Roger Traynor (1965-66) and for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren (1966-67).
He has also been a visiting professor at the Emory University School of Law, Atlanta
(1982-83), and at University College, London (1987-88).
©1999 United Church of God, an International Association
Related Information:
Table of Contents that includes "Creation or Evolution:An Interview With Phillip Johnson"
Other Articles by Jerold Aust
Origin of article "Creation or Evolution:An Interview With Phillip Johnson"
Keywords: creation evolution Darwinism Darwin on Trial Defeating Darwinism Christian families naturalism Johnson, Phillip
Evolution and religion: