Phillip E. Johnson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Phillip E. Johnson (born 1940) is a retired UC Berkeley American law professor and author. He became a born-again Christian as a tenured professor. He is considered the father of the intelligent design movement, which criticizes the theory of evolution, and promotes intelligent design, as an alternative. Johnson also denies the predominant scientific view that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the sole cause of AIDS (see AIDS reappraisal).[1][2] The scientific community dismisses both notions as pseudoscience.[3][4][5]

Contents

[edit] Biography

Johnson was born in Aurora, Illinois in 1940. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree in English literature, from Harvard University in 1961. He studied law at the University of Chicago. He served as a law clerk for the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Earl Warren. He is an emeritus professor of law at Boalt School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, where he served on the active faculty from 1967-2000. Johnson became a born-again Christian following a difficult divorce according to Barbara Forrest.[6]

Despite having no formal background in the biological sciences, Johnson has become a prominent critic of evolutionary theory. Johnson popularized the term "intelligent design" in its current sense in his 1991 book, Darwin on Trial. He remains one of the best known advocates for intelligent design, and is considered the founder of the intelligent design movement.

He is a critic of methodological naturalism, the basic principle of science that restricts it to the investigation of natural causes for observable phenomena, and espouses a philosophy he has coined theistic realism. He is the author of several books on intelligent design and related topics, as well as textbooks on criminal law.

Johnson is an elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Since 2001, Johnson has suffered a series of minor right brain strokes. His rehabilitations have limited his public activities and participation in the debate over Intelligent Design, both because of their physical effects as well as Johnson's belief that they were signs from God urging him to spend more time with his faith and family and less in "prideful debate."[7]

In 2004 he was awarded the inaugural "Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth"

[edit] Ideas

The cover of the book shows Charles Darwin
The cover of the book shows Charles Darwin

[edit] Intelligent design

Johnson is best known as one of the founders of the intelligent design movement, principal architect of the Wedge Strategy, author of the Santorum Amendment, and one of the ID movement's most prolific authors. Johnson is co-founder and program advisor of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC).

Johnson has advocated strongly in the public and political spheres for the teaching of intelligent design in favor of evolution; which Johnson characterizes as "atheistic," "falsified by all of the evidence" and whose "logic is terrible." In portraying the philosophy of science, and by extension its theories like evolution as atheistic, Johnson argues that a more valid alternative is "theistic realism". Theistic realism asserts that science, by relying upon methodological naturalism, demands an a priori adoption of a naturalistic philosophy that wrongly dismisses out of hand any explanation that contains a supernatural cause. These concepts are a common theme in his many books, including "Darwin on Trial," "Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education," "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds," and "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism."

Working through the Center for Science and Culture Johnson wrote the early draft language of the Santorum Amendment, which encouraged a "Teach the Controversy" approach to evolution in public school education, a theme now common to the intelligent design movement.

Nancy Pearcey, a Center for Science and Culture fellow and Johnson associate, acknowledges Johnson's leadership of the intelligent design movement in two of her most recent publications. In an interview with Johnson for World magazine, Pearcey says, "It is not only in politics that leaders forge movements. Phillip Johnson has developed what is called the 'Intelligent Design' movement..." [8] In Christianity Today, she reveals Johnson's religious beliefs and his criticism of evolution and affirms Johnson as "The unofficial spokesman for ID"[9]

In his 1997 book Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds Johnson summed up the underlying philosophy of his advocacy for intelligent design and against methodological and philosophical naturalism:

"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." pg. 91-92, "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds" Phillip Johnson, 1997

Johnson acknowledges that the goal of the intelligent design movement is to promote a theistic agenda cast as a scientific concept [10][11][12]

Johnson rejects common descent and does not take a position on the age of the Earth.[13][14]

Johnson is one of the authors of the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document and its Teach the Controversy campaign, which attempts to cast doubt on the validity of the theory of evolution, its acceptance within the scientific community, and reduce its role in public school science curricula while promoting intelligent design. The Teach the Controversy campaign portrays evolution as "a theory in crisis."

Johnson has been explicit about the Christian principles underlying his philosophy and agenda and that of the intelligent design movement. In speaking at the "Reclaiming America for Christ Conferences" Johnson has described the movement thus:

  • "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science." ..."Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?" ..."I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." [15]
  • "In summary, we have to educate our young people; we have to give them the armor they need. We have to think about how we're going on the offensive rather than staying on the defensive. And above all, we have to come out to the culture with the view that we are the ones who really stand for freedom of thought. You see, we don't have to fear freedom of thought because good thinking done in the right way will eventually lead back to the Church, to the truth-the truth that sets people free, even if it goes through a couple of detours on the way. And so we're the ones that stand for good science, objective reasoning, assumptions on the table, a high level of education, and freedom of conscience to think as we are capable of thinking. That's what America stands for, and that's something we stand for, and that's something the Christian Church and the Christian Gospel stand for-the truth that makes you free. Let's recapture that, while we're recapturing America." [15]
  • "What I am not doing is bringing the Bible into the university and saying, "We should believe this." Bringing the Bible into question works very well when you are talking to a Bible-believing audience. But it is a disastrous thing to do when you are talking, as I am constantly, to a world of people for whom the fact that something is in the Bible is a reason for not believing it." ... "You see, if they thought they had good evidence for something, and then they saw it in the Bible, they would begin to doubt. That is what has to be kept out of the argument if you are going to do what I to do, which is to focus on the defects in their [the evolutionist's] case—the bad logic, the bad science, the bad reasoning, and the bad evidence."[16]

The scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,[17] as pseudoscience[18][19][20] or as junk science.[21][22]

[edit] HIV and AIDS

Johnson is involved in a movement challenging the scientific consensus that HIV is the cause of AIDS.[23] This group asserts, broadly, that there is no scientific evidence that HIV actually causes AIDS, and that while HIV and AIDS are correlated, they are not universally correlated, as (it is argued) there are people who have AIDS symptoms without HIV and people with HIV who have no AIDS symptoms. The majority of the scientific community consider that the AIDS dissident arguments are the result of cherry-picking of scientific data[24] as dissidents selectively ignore evidence in favour of HIV's role in AIDS and endanger public health by dissuading people from utilizing proven treatments.[25][26]

[edit] Criticisms

The most serious specific allegation leveled by a number of critics is that Johnson, like most proponents of intelligent design, is often intellectually dishonest in his arguments advancing intelligent design and attacking the scientific community.[27][28] For example, he has been accused of numerous equivocations, particularly involving the term naturalism which can refer either to methodological naturalism or to philosophical naturalism.[29][30]

In fact-checking Johnson's books Darwin on Trial and Defeating Darwinism, one reviewer has argued that almost every scientific source Johnson cited had been misused or distorted, from simple misinterpretations and innuendos to outright fabrications. The reviewer, Brian Spitzer, a professor of Biology, described Darwin on Trial as the most deceptive book he had ever read.[28]

Since Johnson is considered by those both inside and outside the movement to be the father and architect of the intelligent design movement and its strategies, Johnson's statements are often used to validate the criticisms leveled by those who allege that the Discovery Institute and its allied organizations are merely stripping the obvious religious content from their anti-evolution assertions as a means of avoiding the legal restrictions of the Establishment Clause, a view reinforced by the December 2005 ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial which found that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature. They argue that ID is simply an attempt to put a patina of secularity on top of what is a fundamentally religious belief and thus that the "Teach the Controversy" exhortation is disingenuous, particularly when contrasted to his statements in the Wall Street Journal and other secular media. Critics point out that contrary to the Discovery Institute's and Johnson's claims, the theory of evolution is well-supported and widely accepted within the scientific community; there is little controversy on a scientific level. Popular disagreement with evolutionary theory should not be considered as a reason for challenging it as a scientifically valid subject to be taught, they contend.

In making their case, critics of Johnson commonly point to his central role in the Discovery Institute's carefully-orchestrated campaign known as the Wedge Strategy. The Wedge Strategy, as envisioned by the Discovery Institute, is designed to leave the science establishment looking close-minded in the short term with a long-term goal being a redefinition of science that centers on the removal of methodological naturalism from the philosophy of science and the scientific method, thereby allowing for supernatural explanations to be introduced as science (see Theistic realism). This would have the net effect of bringing a religious orientation into the public schools via science classrooms. Critics note that Johnson, as a principal officer of the Discovery Institute, often cites an overall plan to put the United States on a course toward the theocracy envisioned in the Wedge Strategy, and that the Discovery Institute as a matter of policy intentionally obfuscates its agenda. According to Johnson, "The movement we now call the wedge made its public debut at a conference of scientists and philosophers held at Southern Methodist University in March 1992."[31]

Johnson describes the wedge strategy thusly:

  • "We are taking an intuition most people have (the belief in God) and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator." Johnson, Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator. The Los Angeles Times. March, 2001.
  • "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."[10]
  • "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."[11]
  • "So the question is: "How to win?" That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do."[32]
  • The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.' [33]

[edit] Bibliography

[edit] References

  1. ^ The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis website
  2. ^ Overestimating AIDS Phillip E. Johnson. Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity.
  3. ^ "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design David Mu. Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.
  4. ^ National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush National Science Teachers Association Press Release August 3, 2005
  5. ^ Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134-1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006.
  6. ^ Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics Barbara Forrest. Chapter 1, The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream. MIT Press, 2001
  7. ^ Denver Seminary An Online Review of Current Biblical and Theological Studies - Volume 7, 2004
  8. ^ Wedge Issues - World Magazine, July 29, 2000
  9. ^ We're Not in Kansas Anymore Nancy Pearcey. Access Research Network. Originally published in Christianity Today, May 22, 2000.
  10. ^ a b Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin - National Post, 2/6/04
  11. ^ a b WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION - World Magazine, 11/30/96
  12. ^ Darwinism: Science or Philosophy - Southern Methodist University Symposium 3/26/92
  13. ^ Doubting Rationalist - Washington Post, 5/15/05
  14. ^ Creationists and Intelligent Design - World Views, 1/27/04
  15. ^ a b How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won - www.TruthsThatTransform.org
  16. ^ How to Debate the Issue Phillip Johnson. The Kennedy Commentary, Coral Ridge Ministries.
  17. ^ See: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. 3) The Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 600 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. A four day A Scientific Support For Darwinism petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism.
  18. ^ "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design David Mu. Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.
  19. ^ National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush National Science Teachers Association Press Release August 3, 2005
  20. ^ Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134-1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006.
  21. ^ "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design’s arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't. Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.
  22. ^ Junk science Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006.
  23. ^ Virusmyth.net website
  24. ^ Galea P, Chermann JC. (1998). "HIV as the cause of AIDS and associated diseases". Genetica 104 (2): 133-142. PMID 10220906. 
  25. ^ Delaney M. (1995). ""The Duesberg phenomenon": Duesberg and other voices". Science 267 (5196): 314. PMID 7824920. 
  26. ^ Watson J. (2006). "Scientists, activists sue South Africa's AIDS 'denialists'". Nat Med. 12 (1): 6. PMID 16397537. 
  27. ^ Another Dishonest Creationist Quote - Talk.origins.org, 2/4/04
  28. ^ a b The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth? - Talk Reason, 8/4/02
  29. ^ A Philosophical Premise of 'Naturalism'? - Talkdesign.org, 9/24/02
  30. ^ Darwin Prosecuted: Review of Johnson's Darwin on Trial - Creation/Evolution, issue 33, 1993
  31. ^ The Wedge - Phillip E. Johnson, 1999
  32. ^ Berkeley’s Radical - Touchstone, 2002
  33. ^ Missionary Man - Church and State, April 1999

[edit] External links

[edit] Audio and Video

There are several interrelated articles on Wikipedia about this subject, see:
Teach the Controversy; Wedge strategy; Discovery Institute; Howard Ahmanson, Jr
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/h/i/Phillip_E._Johnson_ce75.html"
In other languages