3rd International Conference on Creationism - report
by Phillip Johnson
Phillip Johnson's book Darwin on trial has provided a significant challenge to the evidences for evolution advanced by its advocates. Reviews (albeit critical) in journals like Nature and Scientific Americanhave brought it to the attention of a wide circle of people, and there are indications that this book is having an impact. Johnson, an eminent Professor of Law, has not identified himself overtly with the creationist movement and has operated almost entirely within the academic world. He addressed a large public evening session at the International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh, 1994), and provided his hearers with a rationale for the strategy he has adopted.
He spent a sabbatical in 1987-8 at University College London, as Visiting Professor of law. It proved to be a turning point in Phillip Johnson's thinking. He focused his attention on the way Christians were handling the theory of evolution, with particular reference to the creation/evolution controversies. He could identify three groups of people, whom he described as follows.
1. The `establishment' evolutionists. These people are dominant in the universities and scientific societies, and are committed to the philosophical principle of naturalism. In their view, the physical world is all there is, and so life must have come into existence in a way that conforms to the laws of physics and chemistry. It is assumed, as a matter of first principle, that nature is all there is. There must be a naturalistic explanation of origins which must be purposeless and unintelligent. The issue is settled: evolutionary theories are an essential ingredient in the naturalist's worldview. Nature must do its own creating and must have the resources to do that creating. Anyone who resists is treated with suspicion.
2. The creationists. Creationists form a minority group with an essentially defensive stance. They are united in a commitment to the Bible as a source of knowledge, and there is a tendency for them to hold to the `young earth' position. However, apart from this, these people are characterised by fragmentation. Creationists are engaged in battles on many fronts. By and large, the debate is outside the academic community and in an atmosphere of confrontation. The creationist stance is perceived to be irrelevant to the intellectual life of our culture. To naturalists, the Bible is not a source of revealed truth but a collection of ancient writings to be studied critically like any other book. In this way, creationists are marginalised because their premises are unacceptable to the academic community.
3. The theistic evolutionists. These are people with an allegiance to the Christian tradition but who operate within the establishment culture. They have developed an apologetic which claims to reconcile the biblical view of origins and evolutionary explanations. However, Johnson considers that these people are misnamed: in reality they are attempting to provide a theistic interpretation of naturalism. He thinks them to be hopelessly compromised, with positive assertions lacking in clarity and with a fallback position indistinguishable from that of the evolutionary establishment. The naturalistic challenge to purposeful creation is sidestepped. Because of their academic credentials, theistic evolutionists are influential in the Christian community, but their influence is primarily to allow Christians to accept the dominance of evolutionary naturalism in the academic world without perceiving its anti-Christian character. Their contribution is not helpful: it distracts attention from the real issues.
In 1988, the situation appeared deadlocked. The status quo was unsatisfactory. A scientific theory (evolution) was protected by the dominant culture from serious criticism. Those who did question fundamentals were put outside the scientific community. Furthermore, the evolutionary scenario has become the `creation myth' of our time: it is the starting point for exploring issues of meaning and purpose in life. It should be possible to question this myth - but anyone doing this tends to be treated as an obscurantist and scientifically naive individual. What could be done? After considering various options, Johnson formulated a plan of action. He was not prepared to operate outside the academic world - and yet he needed a way to challenge both the naturalistic philosophy and the evolutionary consensus that was dominant within it. The strategy involves three key elements.
(a) Remove the debate from the Bible/Science platform. The establishment is not interested in biblical revelation and it has already rejected the premises of the creationists. Meaningful debate cannot take place with these people if their philosophical naturalism is not recognised. Furthermore, the creationists are engaging in conflict in too many areas - and there are abundant opportunities for evolutionists to provide answers or to ridicule their opponents. Perhaps because of this, Johnson has found the evolutioary naturalists to be very willing to talk about the Ark and the speculations around it, but are not willing to address the problems of evolutionary theory (such as the problem of invoking mutations in explanations of the origins of complex organs). To focus the debate, it is necessary to concentrate effort on areas which the naturalists claim as their strongholds. According to Johnson, the key issues are the mechanisms of evolution and the philosophical aspects of science and origins.
(b) Redefine the words `evolution' and `creation'. Evolutionists have become very sloppy with the use of these words. This is how they can point to the changes in the colour of the peppered moth, or to the morphology of the beaks of the finches of Galapagos, and claim them as evidence for evolution. Although the fallacy of extrapolation has been discussed within the academic world, the advocates of evolutionary naturalism have failed to reform their vocabulary. Similarly, the word `creation' means different things to different people. Instead of it conveying the general sense of divine power and purpose in bringing all things into existence, it has taken on a narrow meaning: referring to a specific model of earth history. By clarifying the meanings of words, the nature of the controversy between evolutionists and creationists can be more clearly understood.
(c) Shift the focus of debate towards issues of intelligent design and purpose. According to the naturalists, there is no design, no intelligence, no purpose behind the physical universe. According to the Bible, God's works display craftsmanship, intelligent design and purpose. Man, for example, is not an accident of evolutionary history. By making this the focus, the debate is shifted from the assessment of specific models of earth history (where few have expertise or understanding of the issues), to ground where most people can relate to the discussion. This is where the more important theological issues are brought out. It is also (in the US context) a focus which should gain wide support from the numerically strong Christian community. Instead of Christians feeling that the creation/evolution issue is a battleground for specialists, they can now recognise that evolutionary naturalists argue against basic biblical teachings - namely, that this world is subject to God's sovereign control, that it displays his creativity and that it is subject to his plans and purposes.
Johnson has sought to work out this strategy over the past six years, with considerable success. He has spoken in universities as the guest of academic departments, he has a wide writing ministry, and he is using his legal skills to address issues of academic freedom and disciplinary action taken against academics openly questioning evolutionary theory. He participates in debates - but, he hastens to add, not to `win' on points, but to open people up to the issues so that they go away thinking: `I want to find out more about this'.
A personal response
Whilst this report has been written to summarise of Johnson's contribution to the Conference, I want to conclude with a personal testimony. I willingly acknowledge that I have changed my view of Johnson's position. Originally, I felt he was adopting a strategy which was inherently flawed: how can one put revealed truth to one side in order to interact with evolutionary naturalists? Our only solid foundation is the Word of God! So why have I changed my assessment of his strategy? Because Johnson is not setting out to develop a Christian alternative. He has resolutely chosen to avoid saying anything positive. He feels that it is impractical to build until one has first prepared an adequate foundation - and the academic world has not yet acknowledged the validity of Johnson's critique. To operate in the academic area, Johnson is limiting his contribution to themes that can be deemed legitimate by his peers. As someone who wants to build, Johnson's approach does not win my total support. But I can see it as a way forward for Christian academics who feel they must otherwise be alienated from scholarly debate. The conference organisers are to be commended for inviting Johnson; Johnson is to be commended for sharing his vision. If his contribution stirs us to examine carefully what we are doing as individuals and collectively, and helps us to develop strategies which are effective, we have cause to thank God for the work Johnson is doing.
David J. Tyler (1995)
