On Fri, 03 Dec 1999 23:40:43 +0000, glenn morton wrote:
GM>I couldn't sleep because of this note written by Johnson. So, I came
>upstairs to write this. And this is a sad thing. Many may disagree with me
>on this but from my perspective Johnson's rather arrogant in-your-face
>message that Christianity is not on the top of his agenda bothers me.
Why should Glenn be bothered that some Christians have a different
ministry? The Bible makes it clear that Christians have different gifts and
callings (1Cor 12:4ff).
There are plenty of Christian ministers, evangelists and apologists with
whom Christianity is overtly "at the top of their agenda". For Johnson,
Christianity may still be "on the top of his agenda", but he sees his
particular ministry as engaging the secular world on a more basic level than
Christianity. Since much of the secular world today is completely ignorant
of Christianity, there is a need for some to work at this pre-Christian level.
It is in fact the same sort of approach that the Apostle Paul had in Acts 17
when he spoke to the Greek philosophers on their own terms about their
belief in an "Unknown God". Paul started from where they were and talked
first about "The God who made the world and everything in it..." (Acts
17:24).
GM>On the 18th of November I e-mailed Paul Nelson to cite some things that
>saddened me about the ID movement the main thing. One of them was Johnson's
>statement in Touchstone last summer. I am saddened that they want to remove
>the Bible from the public discussion.
Glenn is "saddened" unnecessarily! Johnson does not say that he wants "to
remove the Bible from the public discussion". What he says is, *in the area
of "Darwinian evolution"*, "to keep the discussion strictly on the scientific
evidence and the philosophical assumptions", and since Darwinists like to
bring up the Bible as a red-herring, "the first thing that has to be done is to
get the Bible out of the discussion". Johnson adds says "This is not to say
that the biblical issues are unimportant":
"The Right Question. In short, our scientific leadership is in a philosophical
muddle and is only making things worse with its campaign of intimidation,
factual misrepresentation, and semantic legerdemain. To put things on a
more rational basis, the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out
of the discussion. Too many people, including journalists, have seen the
movie Inherit the Wind and have become convinced that everyone who
questions Darwinism must want to remove the microscopes and textbooks
from the biology classrooms and just read the book of Genesis to the
students. It is vital not to give any encouragement to this prejudice, and to
keep the discussion strictly on the scientific evidence and the philosophical
assumptions. This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant- the
point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated
materialist prejudice from scientific fact. The question for now is not
whether the vast claims of Darwinian evolution conflict with Genesis, but
whether they conflict with the evidence of biology." (Johnson P.E., "The
Wedge: Breaking the Modernist Monopoly on Science", Touchstone,
July/August 1999, Vol. 12, No. 4, p22).
GM>And what is so surprising to me is
>the willingness of the Christian publishers to go along with them by
>publishing their books that never seem to mention anything about
>Christianity or the Bible.
Some of Johnson's books *do* mention "Christianity or the Bible". For
example, "Reason in the Balance" does.
But in the case of "Darwin on Trial", Johnson did not intend it to be a
Christian book and he deliberately went to a secular publisher, Regnery
Gateway, who published the first edition. But then Regnery Gateway sold
the rights for the second edition to Intervarsity Press who presumably felt
that although DoT was not a Christian book it was valuable for their mainly
Christian readership to know some of the scientific and philosophical
arguments against Darwinism.
And Mike Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box was published by a secular
publisher, Free Press.
GM>It has occurred to me that Phil, in the letter
>below is merely being consistent with what he has been saying for a long
>time. He has said so on numerous occasions but no one has been listening.
Glenn should speak for himself! *Some* of us have "been listening".
GM>After tonight's letter from Keith, maybe people will listen a bit. First a
>repeat of this letter. (for those on the evolution reflector, you can find
>Keith Miller's entire original post at
>http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/199912/0013.html )
>
>>At 01:26 PM 12/3/99 -0500, Keith B Miller Quoted Phillip Johnson :
>>_____________________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>Keith:
>>>
>>>First, it is true that Jonathan Wells is a member of the Unification
>>>Church, and this fact has never been "hidden."
>>>
>>>Second, the Wedge (including the Discovery Institute) is an intellectual
>>>movement, not a church or confessional movement. We have no faith
>>>statement or religious requirement. Our objective is to bring before the
>>>literate public significant questions which are presently suppressed by the
>>>cultural power of the scientific materialist establishment, aided as it is
>>>by theistic evolutionists such as yourself. We welcome participation by
>>>all qualified persons who want to make it possible to follow the scientific
>>>evidence where it leads, rather than being restricted by the dictates of
>>>methodological naturalism. For example, any Moslem or Mormon would also be
>>>welcome to make an intellectual contribution to the scientific and
>>>philosophical debate -- especially if he or she were as capable as Jonathan
>>>Wells.
>>>
>>>Third, this personal attack strikes me as an act of desperation. Why don't
>>>you start thinking about the issues raised by Jonathan's excellent
>>>scientific publications, instead of grasping for some further excuse for
>>>ignoring the evidence for intelligent design in biology? Those papers are
>>>available at the ARN web site, www.arn.org
>>>
>>>Finally, your threat to publish what is already widely known brings to mind
>>>what the Duke of Wellington said to a lady who threatened to publish his
>>>amorous correspondence. You can look it up. And please do publish this
>>>message with your own.
>>>
>>>Phillip Johnson
>>>____________________________________________________________________________
>>>
GM>What strikes me is that given the support that the Christian community,
>Christian publishers and the Christian laity has given Johnson and his
>followers, he now basically says that religion doesn't matter to his
>movement.
Glenn is quite right. The ID movement's "objective is to bring before the
literate public significant questions which are presently suppressed by the
cultural power of the scientific materialist establishment.." To achieve that
objective, "religion doesn't matter". Why should it?
GM>Yet he freely accepts all the benefits that the Christian press
>and laity give him.
This makes it sound like Johnson twists "the Christian press"'s arm.
Johnson does not approach "the Christian press". They approach him.
Proof of that is Johnson's insistence that Darwin on Trial be first published
through a secular publisher, and Johnson's putting Free Press in touch with
Mike Behe to publish Darwin's Black Box.
The "Christian press" are not complaining and nor are most of the quarter
of a million "laity" who have bought Johnson's books!
GM>ARN, the place where he refers people, used to be a
>place Christians could count on to support the Bible, but it seems that
>they too have been subverted to this new Bible-less crusade.
That the "Christian press" sells Johnson's *four* books, which do not
mention the Bible much, does not imply that the same "Christian press"
doesn't "support the Bible", because in fact the vast majority of their
books do "support the Bible".
GM>As I said,
>this is consistent with what he has been saying all along. From a recent
>Touchstone,
>
>"To put things on a more rational basis, the first thing that has to be
>done is to get the Bible out of the discussion." Philip Johnson,"The
>Wedge," Touchstone, July/August, 1999, p. 22,
The penny has finally dropped with Glenn that Johnson has been
"consistent with what he has been saying all along! See above for the full
context. Johnson is talking about "the discussion" of "Darwinian
evolution". Bringing the Bible into the discussion only further complicates
an already complicated issue. The first question is not whether "Darwinian
evolution" is compatible with the Bible or not, but is it true in its own right:
"When I discuss the subject of my book [Darwin on Trial] with people who
are followers of a theistic religion (usually Christians-they might be
Jewish), there's one problem I always run into.... I'll tend to sort of say, "I
have this question about whether the Darwinian version of evolution (the
theory of evolution that is currently accepted), is true. And then they'll tend
to say in response, "Well, we found a way to reconcile it with belief in
God", or "we found a way to reconcile it with the Bible", or something like
that". And what I always then have to say is, "Wait a minute! That's not the
first point", you see. "Before worrying about whether one thing can be
reconciled with another, let's first look at the question of whether it's
*true*. Whether we need to worry about it at all". And my argument is,
insofar as this vast creative power is claimed, for mutation and selection,
it's not true." (Johnson P.E., "Phillip Johnson and Eugenie Scott", 2 tape
set, Wisconsin Public Radio, Access Research Network, 1992)
GM>This of course implies that discussion can't be rational with the Bible in
>there. In fairness to Johnson, he says he wants to do that because people
>react to the Bible. Of course people react to the Bible, it is God's word.
The point is that some people want to know whether "Darwinian evolution"
is true, whether or not "the Bible...is God's word" or not.
GM>Apparently, Johnson and the ID people don't seem to think it is all that
>important. If that isn't enough, then here is Johnson 2 years ago on the
>PBS debate saying the same thing,
>
>"In fact I have said on many occasions and have urged persons in the
>conservative Christian community to put aside the Bible issues and let us
>ask the question what is actually known from scientific evidence as
>opposed to materialistic philosophy." PBS Debate broadcast Dec 19, 1997
That makes perfect sense.
GM>Why does Phil and the ID crowd run from the Bible? Are they ashamed of it?
Johnson does not "run from the Bible". It is not centrally relevant to the
question of whether "Darwinian evolution" is true.
GM>Phil apparently is and doesn't want to disturb those of other religions who
>might want to join him in his crusade NOT TO EVANGELISE but to knock down
>Darwin. And in their rush to kick at Darwin, they throw the Bible out of
>the public debate.
See above. It is not "the public debate" that Johnson is saying to "put aside
the Bible issues" but the debate about whether "Darwinian evolution" is
true?
GM>Isn't this what the atheists want--to get the Bible out
>of the public discussion?
Actually in this case, "the atheists" would *love* to "the Bible" *in* "the
public discussion" about whether "Darwinian evolution" is true! Then they
can argue things like whether the Bible teaches "pi" or not, in order to
deflect attention away from the weakness in their own position.
GM>While Phil may think it is 'desparation' to take note of Well's religion,
>it was not very forthcoming of the ID movement to never mention this little
>fact either. The Touchstone (July/Aug 1999) doesn't say anything about
>Wells being a minister for the Unification Church! Wells is said to have
>done religious studies at Yale but it makes no mention of this:
>
>"At the end of the Washington Monument rally in September, 1976, I was
>admitted to the second entering class at Unification Theological Seminary"
>Jonathan Wells,
>http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/DARWIN.htm
Why should the ID movement "take note of Well's religion"? It is nothing
to do with the ID movement.
GM>How would anyone know this supposedly 'well known' fact that Johnson
>speaks of? It never appeared in any bio that I am aware of. It always
>seemed to be omitted! Frankly, I don't think the ID movement has been
>forthcoming and open with the Christian community in this regard.
I was not aware that Jonathan was a Moonie, but then why should I? I am
not aware of what religion the other ID leaders are, except Johnson, a
Presbyterian and Behe a Catholic. It is simply not relevant to the ID
movement what religion one has, or even if one has a religion.
Indeed it reflects great credit on Johnson that he is not a man-fearing
hypocrite in this. Johnson knew from the very beginning that Wells was a
Moonie because Wells was honest and up-front and told him. Johnson
could have been like many a church-politician and calculated the PR
problems it could cause him and given Wells the brush-off. But Johnson is
refreshingly consistent. He says that what religion one is doesn't matter to
the ID movement and now he has proved it!
Personally it just enhances my already deep respect for Johnson. He
*really* means what he says, and says what he means.
The enemies of ID like Miller and Glenn will no doubt try to play this card
for all that it's worth, but they will find it is not worth much. I agree with
Johnson that it just highlights their "desperation"!
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"And finally Darwinism itself grew more and more theoretical. The paper
demonstration that such and such a character was or might be adaptive was
regarded by many writers as sufficient proof that it must owe its origin to
Natural Selection. Evolutionary studies became more and more merely
case-books of real or supposed adaptations. Late nineteenth-century
Darwinism came to resemble the early nineteenth-century school elf
Natural Theology. Paley redivivus, one might say, but philosophically
upside down, with Natural Selection instead of a Divine Artificer as the
Deus ex machina. There was little contact of evolutionary speculation with
the concrete facts of cytology and heredity, or with actual
experimentation." (Huxley J., "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis", [1942],
George Allen & Unwin: London, 1945, reprint, p23)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------