Know Your Intelligent Design Creationists: Phillip Johnson
Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 04:46:07 AM PDT
Prof.
Phillip E. Johnson is a Professor Emeritus of Law at UC Berkeley and a senior advisor and cofounder of The Discovery Institute's
Center for Science and Culture (Catchy name for a right-wing think tank dedicated in large part to discrediting science). As the story goes, following an emotionally exhausting mid-life reevaluation of some sort, Johnson was born again and eventually set out to destroy what he calls materialist science.
The mission of the Intelligent Design PR movement as originally envisioned by Johnson is not limited to attacks on evolutionary biology. They see all science as lacking a proper theistic basis. As best I can discern, Johnson and his ilk want every field of science and indeed all public policy to be held hostage to some vague theocratic organization, with members of their own ultra-conservative religious faith occupying those seats of power. It is in this context that Johnson uses evolution to attack science. He calls evolution the 'thin edge of the wedge' with which to 'split the log of materialism open'. Much more below.
Johnson is known as the father of modern day Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) in part for his early organizational role developing a strategy for the IDC movement called
The Wedge.
[Full Text of the "Wedge"] The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism ...
If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this, ...We call our strategy the "wedge."--Phillip E. Johnson in Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds pg. 91 - 92, 1997
Johnson first rose to quasi-national prominence after his initial book Darwin on Trial (DoT) was published in 1993. In DoT he revealed what is in the opinion of many scientists and science philosophers a multifaceted assault of legal rhetoric, cleverly constructed misinformation, and a campaign to portray all of science contemptuously as a front for an atheistic ideology which is fatally lacking a coherent metaphysical structure.
Johnson's modus operandi is on full display in DoT where he starts by portraying evolution as a 'theory in crises', and goes on to discuss the legal case for evolution using as his format a case before a criminal court. The fun and games start right away, as Johnson quietly assumes IDC would hold the defendant position, leaving mainstream evolutionary biology as the plaintiff saddled with the burden of proof. In this way he cunningly reserves the advantageous role of default winner in the event the evolutionary prosecutor is unable to 'prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Not satisfied with weighting the game so heavily in favor of IDC in this manner, Johnson then goes on to play both prosecution, defense, and jury. He presents the case against evolution using many of the same tired old arguments handily refuted on Talk Origins and shot down every day on blogs such as The Panda's Thumb, without providing substantive rebuttal. Johnson bounces around loosely, at times almost incoherently, using the terms evolution, Darwinism, materialism, and naturalism, to refer to any or all of common descent, modes of speciation, strict Darwinian gradualism, repugnant political ideologies, and even atheism.
When the confusing nature with which he uses these terms are politely pointed out by critics, he or his defenders tend to respond with the innocent act of 'I didn't mean it that way'. He goes on to challenge evolutionary biology with gaps in the fossil record and concludes there are no transitionals, or that the ones which exist are insufficient. Worst of all, he selectively quotes distinguished evolutionary biologists to make them appear to doubt evolution, when of course they do not, and then feigns surprise that anyone would impugn his motives.
A brilliant example of that tactic is when Johnson quotes the late Stephen J. Gould out of context, making it appear the eminent evolutionary biologist harbors serious reservations about evolution. When pressed, Johnson or his supporters respond to the effect that no one meant to imply Gould had any such reservations: In other words, IDC/Johnson apologists would have us believe that in a book written to cast doubt on evolutionary biology, a book in which Darwin is metaphorically on trial, Philip Johnson, a veteran Professor of Law, quoted Gould in a context conveniently supporting the book's main antievolutionary thesis, but that he didn't mean to imply that Gould doubted evolutionary biology. (Brian Spitzer chronicles some of these attacks in DoT taking Johnson to task Here)
Johnson is a lawyer. And lawyers are not bound by the protocols of science. So Johnson does what lawyers do [when the facts and reasonable inferences are not on their side]; play to emotion, fear, ignorance, and prejudice, in the hope of blinding de facto jurors to factual evidence, downplaying or undermining any evidence against his 'client', and generally present their 'case' in the most favorable light. But he applies his legal role inconsistently, slipping in and out of lawyer mode, judge mode, and science mode where and when convenient, without notifying the reader.
Despite feeling unconstrained by the protocols of science, Johnson clearly covets scientific credibility ... which leads to the rather schizophrenic position in that he uses scientific sounding arguments to support IDC, while simultaneously holding out that science is hopelessly, philosophically, rigged to ignore 'supernatural' or 'non naturalistic' explanations and thus should be dismissed.
The conclusion I can't help but come to when reading Johnson's critiques and those of his close allies is one of a legalistic shotgun approach, where he's attempting to say something, anything, which resonates in the minds of his readers. Even if it contradicts what he just got finished saying: Evolution is not science; science and evolution is atheism; science and evolution are religions; there is no scientific evidence for evolution; scientific evidence doesn't count because science excludes magic; the scientific evidence supports IDC; science is bankrupt and therefore worthless. And so on ad nauseum as they merrily drive down Self Contradiction Blvd.
I also can't think of another creationist offhand who so meticulously utilizes pretty much each and every logical fallacy known to mankind to their advantage. Ad Hoc Rationalizations, Special Pleading, False Dichotomies, Argument from Adverse Consequences, Observational Selection, Appeal to Ignorance ... etc. Johnson is a metaphorical one man wrecking crew, smashing his way through Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit with seemingly oblivious delight. He opens a hole in scientific methodology, shoots out the light of reason, all while urging his followers to stampede through the breach and storm the ramparts of science with sheer political numbers. To hell with the consequences.
Despite suffering a mild stroke in 2001, and another just recently, Johnson and his writings remain a potent anti-science force. (I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea here about the strokes: I disagree with Johnson sharply and consider him a rightwing religious extremist. But I'm not happy about his misfortune or hoping Johnson suffers a lingering death or a serious handicap by any means. There are few people in the world I would wish that on, and Phil Johnson isn't anywhere close to being on that list. We all have the right to try and change public policy through legal means and Johnson is well within his Constitutionally Protected Rights in pursuing his goals with respect to science. I by no means rejoice in the knowledge of his health problems, and I sincerely wish him the best possible recovery.)
This anti-science movement and Johnson's influence on it should be taken seriously. He's an influential opinion maker and/or a political lobbyist for IDC in the evangelical grass roots community. Johnson combines down home charm and sophistication with eloquence. He is/was a polished public speaker, who knew how to tailor his language for widely varying audiences. He passed on this skill to other members of the Discovery Institute, and they have developed a substantial following who accept uncritically every word they speak or write. Johnson has and continues to inspire hundreds of thousands of his fellow fundamentalist Christians, many of whom are emboldened with recent political victories.
Judging by past and present theocracies in the world, a society in which scientific matters and everything else in the public sphere are governed by the extremist religious wing of any party would not be Edenic to say the least. But it sure could end up resembling hell.
