The Awesome Phillip E. Johnson

Fundamentalists love Phillip E. Johnson, but only because they don’t hear him laughing all the way to the bank. In fact, the only thing I like about Johnson is that he takes advantage of fundamentalists’ gullibility to make a living. Certainly beats being a lawyer, in my book anyway.Of course, Johnson portrays himself as David standing up to the Goliath of entrenched dogma, as the messenger of post-Darwinian enlightenment. Underneath the noble mask, though, he’s just another huckster. It’s ironic that he spends half his time paying lip service to Truth-with-a-capital-T, then spends the other half mutilating it to serve his dishonest aims. His audience is none the wiser, and since he’s telling them what they want to hear, they don’t complain.Anyone who reads tracts such as Darwin on Trial and Defeating Darwinism (By Opening Minds) realizes instantly that they are aimed at people with little or no knowledge of history, science, or philosophy. The way Johnson sets up straw men such as Naturalism, Materialism, and Evolution makes it clear that he is defining these terms in any way he sees fit, for an audience otherwise unfamiliar with such concepts.For example, he explicitly denies that there is any difference between the concept of species evolution and Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. This, of course, makes it easier for him to point to debate among scientists concerning evolutionary theory and make his readers think that the very notion of species evolution is still being debated in scientific circles. Anyone who understands this difference realizes the dishonesty in Johnson’s method, but his audience wouldn’t care even if they could understand the point.Similarly, Johnson takes great pains to equate philosophical concepts that his readers don’t realize are completely dissimilar. Methodological naturalism is simply the basis of experimental science, limiting the variables in any experimental situation to those that can be scientifically verified. Johnson asserts that this is no different than atheism, because God is excluded from the process. Of course, Johnson understands that by this logic even plumbing is atheistic, but he’ll only apply it to the sciences his audience doesn’t like. Johnson obviously grasps the valid basis of the naturalistic assumption, but it sounds sinister to his audience when he describes it as some bizarre form of fetishism. If his readers can’t see the difference between using naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena and denying the existence of God, Johnson isn’t about to be the one to help them out. He hopes that by making an example of an outspoken atheist such as Richard Dawkins, he can play on his audience’s fundamentalist paranoia.His audience isn’t going to notice the way Johnson contradicts himself at times, but along with railing against the atheism of evolution, he also asserts that Darwinism aspires to be a naturalistic religion with sacred scriptures, priesthood, and creation myths. Johnson doesn’t have to decide whether science is anti-religious or a surrogate religion in and of itself, since either one sounds bad to his readers. He can quote a scientist favorably if something he said supports a point Johnson is trying to make, but quote the same scientist later and condemn him for his blind allegiance to the religion of Materialism.The Johnson Herald always bears the shocking headline Scientists Quoted out of Context Admit ‘Evolution isFalse’!. In Darwin on Trial, his contention that evolution is an unfalsifiable tautology is supported by quotes by prominent scientists (Haldane, Mayr, and Simpson) seemingly asserting that natural selection is proved by the fact that the fittest organisms are the ones that survive. Had he bothered to quote the authors in full, his audience would realize what they truly meant: that there is no universal trait conferring fitness upon all organisms, and that criteria for fitness only apply to a particular organism in its environment at one point in time. Again, this point may be way too subtle for Johnson’s readers.Even his detractors give Johnson credit for being a good lawyer. Johnson attacks Darwinism by trying to create reasonable doubt about its claims, and that’s the essence of a legal argument. However, Johnson would like his audience to believe there’s no such thing as circumstantial evidence. He asserts that all evidence must be of the empirically observable sort, even when the subject at hand is ancient biology. Prehistoric events aren’t likely to have eyewitness accounts, but Johnson repeatedly dismisses geological, paleontological, and radiometric evidence as not constituting proof at all. Consequently, his audience can agree every time he complains that there is no proof of evolution, even though such evidence abounds. If Johnson were to claim during a murder trial that a medical examiner’s forensic evidence isn’t really proof, I doubt even his readers would call him a good lawyer.Johnson also misleads his readers concerning the predictive qualities of a true science. Evolution, he explains, is a pseudoscience because it does not make predictions concerning future evolutionary events that can be used to verify or falsify its assumptions. However, evolutionary science does not claim to know the future course of life on Earth. It makes predictions concerning which fossils we’d be likely to find in which strata, which genetic relationships we should expect among certain species, etc. These can be tested, and have proven reliable.Certainly the most glaring example of Johnson’s deceptive tactics is his misrepresentation of Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy of scientific revolutions. In Darwin on Trial, Johnson hails Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions as if it were ready-made anti-evolutionary propaganda. In Johnson’s interpretation, Kuhn says the evolutionary paradigm is obsolete, and is no more scientifically valid than the geocentric model of the universe. Johnson also has Kuhn asserting that science is just a matter of opinion, and that only those poisoned by the religion of Materialism would subscribe to the evolutionary explanation. Reading Kuhn’s book makes it clear that he meant none of these things (and in some cases just the opposite), but Johnson banks on the fact that his fundamentalist audience isn’t likely to encounter Kuhn’s works directly.Johnson gave biologist Tim Berra a drubbing for using the comparison of Corvette models during three consecutive years (in Berra’s Evolution and the Myth of Creationism) to help readers visualize the notion of descent with modification. Johnson wants his readers to think he scored a knockout punch by pointing out to Berra that cars don’t evolve, although that was hardly the point of Berra’s analogy. Johnson even coined the term "Berra's Blunder" to describe an analogy that uses man-made creations to describe natural science. His audience won’t mind that Johnson has no such issue with Creationist analogies concerning watchmakers and designers, in which man-made creations are used as evidence of the supernatural origin of the complexity found in living organisms.Michael Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity might be scientifically questionable and logically unsound, but Behe’s Blunder is a boon to Johnson in his quest to shake the foundations of evolutionary biology. Behe asserts in Darwin’s Black Box that certain biochemical structures (for example, protein cascades involved in blood clotting or in vision) are so complex that they couldn’t have evolved in Darwinian fashion, and hence are proof of an Intelligent Designer. Luckily, these structures don’t fossilize, so Behe only has to oppose scientific speculation about their origins or development. University of Chicago researcher James Shapiro, honest enough to admit that there is no direct evidence for the Darwinian evolution of such complex structures, nevertheless scoffs at Behe’s notion that such structures must be products of Intelligent Design. Johnson quotes Shapiro in Defeating Darwinism, then laments that a rational scientist could come that close to the Truth about evolution but stop short of admitting it. He attributes this to (what else?) the brainwashing effect of the religion of Materialism.No one can read Darwin on Trial without thinking, This would be a little more persuasive if Johnson had a radical new theory to promote. Unfortunately, all he’s got is the same old Big Magic Guy routine. Johnson correctly points out that Galileo, Newton, and Pasteur were believers in a divine creator, but conveniently fails to mention that none of these three proposed supernatural theories to explain natural phenomena. During a Nova Online debate, Kenneth R. Miller challenged him to state what better theory he could offer to explain all the scientific evidence presented for evolution. Johnson merely answered, I’m not proposing another theory; I’m explaining why I’m not convinced by yours. When the truth is that we don’t know, it’s best to say so. This embarrassing remark makes it clear that Johnson doesn’t believe a word he says, and is filled with contempt for anyone who takes his schtick at face value. It’s obvious that he’s basically dusting off old anti-evolution arguments, sticking them together in no logical way, and presenting them to the uneducated as the New Wisdom. Fundamentalists aren’t going to ask what theory Johnson proposes to replace Darwinism, and the scientific support for it, so he realizes that they are the perfect rubes for his scam. Phillip E. Johnson knows his audience, and he knows how much he can put past them.------------------
The bear thought his son could talk in space about the time matter has to rotate but twisted heaven instead.
-Brad McFall[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 10-21-2003]

In a university psychology course, I recall seeing a movie concerning cognitive development in children. A child was shown a tall, slender cylinder full of water and a wide, shallow dish. Both of these containers could hold the exact same volume of liquid, but when the child was asked which he thought could hold more, he immediately pointed to the tall cylinder. The notion of volume was explained to him and he even watched as the liquid in the cylinder was poured into the dish and filled it exactly. When asked again, he still said the cylinder. His sense of spatial relationships had not developed to the point that he could make such distinctions.Our Syamsu is a similar case of arrested development. Like Phillip Johnson, he asserts the same tired arguments over and over. Unlike Johnson, however, his inability to see evolutionary theory in a rational light is due to his serious intellectual shortcomings.Syamsu makes a claim, and he considers it fact. Any attempt to refute his argument falls on deaf ears, simply because he’s not equipped to consider any other opinion than his own. For instance, he seems to believe that we evolutionists are Darwinian literalists, and so take every word written by Darwin (as well as Haeckel, Galton, et al.) as the gospel truth. He has been told that Darwin’s works, while scientifically revolutionary, are full of 19th century prejudices that none of us feel obliged to share, but he still quotes Darwin’s anachronistic racial comments as if citing evolutionist scripture.The misuse of evolutionary theory by eugenicists and Nazis is enough to nullify the theory of evolution by natural selection itself, says Syamsu. Since Konrad Lorenz was a Nazi and a Darwinist, his reprehensible activities can be used as empirical evidence against Darwin’s theory of evolution. Many have pointed out that Werner von Braun’s Nazi past doesn’t nullify astrophysics, but Syamsu keeps bringing up Lorenz as proof that Darwinism is tantamount to genocide.The best example of Syamsu’s inability to come to terms with reality is the subject of Natural Selection, which he claims includes variation for no good reason. He says that the comparisons that variationist definitions rely on lead inexorably to Nazism. Evidently the true concept of NS is far too complicated for him, because he takes great pains to try to reformulate it in a way that, for its utter meaninglessness, he considers more useful. Mammuthus and Wounded King both pointed out several times that there is no way to gauge differential reproductive success without comparing variants, but Syamsu was ready with one quote from Stephen Gould supposedly supporting his preposterous position, and another from Karl Popper. Neither could be even remotely construed as helping his case.Fitness is another concept Syamsu equates with Nazism, and in his post above he claims that nowhere in the Darwinist literature is it said that criteria for fitness are only applicable to organisms in their environment at one point in time. From the glossary of this very site:The basic fitness concept that population geneticists commonly use is relative reproductive success, as governed by selection in a particular environment; that is, the ability of an organism (genotype) to transmit its genes to the next reproductively fertile generation, relative to this ability in other genotypes in the same environment ("relative fitness").
Everyone reading this understands the Darwinian concept of fitness and how it applies to natural selection. Syamsu says you’re all wrong.Syamsu’s attempts to paint Richard Dawkins as an amoral sociopath were answered by Primordial Egg’s quoting of the preface to Selfish Gene. Dawkins makes it clear he is not advocating lawless anarchy or institutionalized cruelty. Syamsu ignored the post and continued in his mistaken interpretation of Dawkins’s book, of which he probably had not read past the title.It’s clear Syamsu doesn’t understand methodological naturalism, though he rails against the concept in the post above. He deplores the fact that ‘evolutionist fanatics’ apply the term ‘atheistic’ to a supposedly scientific endeavor, without telling us how the concept of supernatural intervention has ever benefitted scientific inquiry.Syamsu is lost when it comes to analogies. To represent the difference between a theory and its misuse, Schrafinator proposed the analogy of a baseball bat. The artifact itself could be used for violent ends quite unintended by its inventor, and in the same way Darwin’s theory has been misused by racists. Syamsu couldn’t grasp the notion at all.The concept of Berra’s Blunder noted above produces the same confusion for Syamsu. He falls for Johnson’s double standard hook, line, and sinker. Johnson claims that since cars don’t reproduce, the origin of cars and natural phenomena are completely dissimilar. Thus, Berra is prohibited from thinking that the design in items manufactured by humans and those produced by natural reproduction have similarities with any illustrative value. Note that Berra is not claiming that Corvettes are proof of evolution, but those are the words that Johnson and Syamsu are trying to put in Berra’s mouth. Then Johnson turns around and claims that human-manufactured items and natural organisms, completely dissimilar a minute ago, are so alike that they support the assumption that natural phenomena are the result of intelligent agency. Of course Syamsu agrees.Why Syamsu says evolutionists commonly explicitly deny that evolution allows for creativity is anyone’s guess. I personally have never heard such a thing asserted by anyone on this forum or any other, so the assumption must be made that it is either a fabrication or a complete distortion of a formerly meaningful idea. However, just the fact that Syamsu brings it up is a testament to his self-delusion. Even if he could cite some author who actually made the claim, we evolutionists would simply tell him we disagree with the author.That’s just the way Syamsu sees it: the cylinder holds more water, and no one can tell him any different.------------------
The bear thought his son could talk in space about the time matter has to rotate but twisted heaven instead.
-Brad McFall

I've been interested to note that Phillip Johnson's influence shows in some of our recent posters. Martin J. Koszegi uses Johnson's acronym NATS (naturalistically assumptive, temporally speaking) to describe the prevailing scientific mode, and declares that evolution is a metaphysical research program. John Paul claims that there is no observable evidence of evolution, and attacks the practitioners of materialistic philosophy who masquerade as scientists. WILLOWTREE (who mentioned Johnson in a recent post) and Apostle are similarly fond of evolution-as-secular-religion arguments.These folks agree with Johnson's deplorable caricature of scientific methodology. They agree every time Johnson claims that there is no evidence for evolution and that Darwinism is unsupported by observable facts. Evidently their main exposure to evolutionary theory is through the writings of Johnson. What can be done to counter this man's insidious influence on the gullible? Isn't there any way the weak-minded can resist his appeal?

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall