Lawyer finds flaws in evolution

[Guest guest]

Source: Edmonton Sun

Published: 7/29/01

Author: TED BYFIELD

 

Phillip E. Johnson, the California professor who of late

has become something of a hero among Christians both

Catholic and Evangelical, bawled them out last week for

not using the brains God gave them.

 

Johnson, professor of law at the University of California

Berkeley, gained much renown or infamy - depending on

which side of the fence you're on - by challenging the

scientific doctrine of "natural selection," sometimes

accurately referred to as "Darwinism" or inaccurately as

"evolution."

 

Johnson wrote a book called Darwin on Trial which he had great

difficulty publishing because representatives of the scientific

community tried to suppress it. They warned the major publishing

houses that if they took on Johnson's book they could expect no more

texts from the science faculties.

 

After much struggling, however, Johnson found a publisher and Darwin

on Trial became a big seller. In it, Johnson makes it clear at the outset

he firmly believes the world is hundreds of millions of years old and he

does not believe the Book of Genesis is a scientific document.

 

However, neither does he believe that nature developed by accident,

which was Charles Darwin's contention. Moreover, he says, Darwin's

disciples have had more than 150 years to prove his case and haven't

come close.

 

While he is not a scientist, says Johnson, he is a lawyer. He knows when

a case is weak and when it isn't, and Darwin's case is very weak indeed.

He then hypothetically puts Darwin on trial, and goes over all the

evidence usually trotted out to "prove" accidental development and

shows convincingly that it does not do so.

 

The book caused an explosion. Johnson was reinforcing "biblical

superstition." Johnson was "anti-science." Johnson had mistaken

concocted high-school textbook illustrations for genuine science. But at

the same time a small contingent of credible scientists came in an

Johnson's side.

 

One of them, Michael Behe, a Pennsylvania biochemist, then came out

with Darwin's Black Box, demonstrating that what was once called "the

simple cell," the basic building block of life, used to be an un-openable

mystery. It has now been opened and scientists see how it works. It's as

simple as a Boeing jet, says Behe, and could not conceivably have come

about by accident.

 

Something else has emerged because of Johnson's initiative. It has

become clear that the foundational assumption of modern science is not

in fact scientific. It is dogmatic.

 

It's as though to call yourself a scientist, you must hold your hand over

your heart and swear that you will never publish anything as "scientific"

that implies there must be some kind of supernatural intelligence

behind whatever phenomenon you're observing. If you ever so much as

suggest this, you are not a scientist. You are a kook, and will be expelled

from the club.

 

However bizarre, says Johnson in Reason in the Balance, adherence to

this creed is precisely what the scientific establishment requires, and

its implication should be understood.

 

It means that if there IS an intelligence behind nature, which

occasionally intrudes into nature, it can never be discovered by science

because to suggest it's there would be deemed unscientific and

prohibited. Science in other words has rooted itself in an atheistic

assumption that is unscientific.

 

However, said Johnson last week as he addressed a conference at the

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the implications of situations

like this escape too many Christians because they have quietly assumed

that thinking is unChristian.

 

He later told the Baptist press that he's frustrated at evangelicals' lack

of boldness in defending their faith. "They are indifferent to ideas," he

said. "They don't understand that ideas have consequences. Many think

they can preserve their faith by walling off a Christian subculture and

somehow keep that independent of the mainstream culture - the public

schools, the television networks and so on.

 

"Christians are pretty good with 'feelings' and 'the heart,' but not so

good with ideas, facts and knowledge. There is no reason why Christians

have to be dumb. They can be well educated; they can be very smart and

they actually have a better starting place than the other side does."

 

Amen. Stockwell Day, please copy.