Chris
I think I understand how Glenn feels, even though I disagree with his view
that Johnson, et al, or anyone else, *should* have a Christian agenda. The
problem for me is that I see no reason why Glenn would be a Christian to
begin with. Christianity does not seem to have a basis in fact any stronger
than any other form of theistic religion (and weaker than some, because of
its remarkably extravagant claims). Johnson is certainly *not* trying to
hurt the cause of religions generally, nor of Christianity. He is
apparently, in fact, doing his utmost best to *help* such causes, judging
from the two books of his that I have ("Darwin on Trial" and "Reason in the
Balance") and from what I have heard about his views and activities.
I think I can even understand (up to some level, at least) why a person like
Glenn might *want* to support a Christian agenda. All I will do here is
suggest that he read my post on "The Unbearable Heaviness of
Non-Naturalism," and consider whether there might be a reasonable
alternative to Christianity.
Glenn, I *suspect* that there might be a strong psychological component in
your acceptance of Christianity, that you, for example, associate it with
peace or happiness or psychological security or morality or justice (being
rewarded, ultimately, for being a good person, etc.), or even just with a
sense of living in a universe that does not seem "cold" and "bleak." But,
Christianity is not the only way to obtain the psychological benefits that
it seeks to make available (and I think it is ultimately *harmful* in this
respect).
I don't want to try here to argue you out of your beliefs in this area, but
you seem so rational (in my view) with respect to scientific issues (at
least with respect to evolution) that I can't help but wish that you'd apply
the same fact-oriented intellectual rigor to your religious beliefs (which I
do not think you have done).
I am not, as you might guess, a fan of Johnson. I think his distortions of
evolutionary theory and fact are too great to be honest (or he's a lot
stupider than he appears), and his pretense that non-naturalist views should
be put on an equal footing (with respect to Occam's Razor) as naturalism
appeals to some, but it is *not* rational, despite the title of his book on
the topic. Naturalism is doomed always, by the very nature of its basic
claim, to require *much* stronger support than naturalism, because, at least
in the theistic versions, it is a super-*super*set of naturalism. Even in
the *weakest* versions, it *still* goes beyond anything that naturalism
would claim, and thus requires stronger support. In fact, because, by
definition, it postulates the existence of a metaphysical realm that's
*metaphysically* "above" or "outside" our natural world, it requires a
different *kind* of argument, as well, either philosophical as such or by
showing some *logically* irremediable flaw in naturalism as such.
I'm not going to develop much respect for Johnson until he starts dealing
with such issues honestly, instead of merely trying to convince people that
individual naturalistic theories (some of which *can* be refuted, of course)
are false. This tactic, at best, merely disproves individual, specific
naturalistic theories. It does not prove that *any* form of non-naturalist
theory must be true; that burden of proof remains right where it started.
Of course, because no *positive* evidence is available for his
non-naturalistic claims, attacking naturalistic theories is all he *can* do,
really. But it will only work, objectively, if he can find a basic flaw in
the idea of naturalism as such. I would guess, from the nature of his
arguments, that he knows that he ultimately has no case at all in a positive
sense, and that his position is epistemologically untenable. But he seems
driven to propagandize against naturalism all the same, as if the idea of
living in a *purely* naturalistic universe would somehow amount to a
metaphysical disaster. It's too bad he doesn't apply his intellect to
*usefully* criticizing current scientific theories.
It's not generally a good idea to try to make facts fit a theory, as you
(and Johnson) seem to be doing. The Bible was written long before modern
science and scientific method, so there is no reason that it should in fact
be consistent with scientific observational fact and scientific theory.
--Chris C
Now is the time for all good people to come to.