From: brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Gould versus Johnson
Date: 12 Jan 93 19:20:24 GMT


   In article <1io74l$pqb@agate.berkeley.edu> philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu
writes...

   It is nice to see that the circle or talk.origins has recently expanded
to include Phillip E. Johnson, the author of _Darwin on Trial_.  At the end
of this article Dr. Johnson notes, "...it is possible to debate metaphysical
differences in an academic setting in a fair-minded and mutually respectful
manner."  I understand that Talk.Origins can in no way be construed as "an
academic setting", but I feel that in at least one instance Dr. Johnson's post
may have more than slightly overstepped the bounds of fair-mindedness and
mutual respect.

   Dr. Johnson wrote...

       "God as a remote First Cause remains a possibility, but God as
	an active creator is absolutely ruled out by the blind watchmaker
	thesis.  That is why Richard Dawkins exults that "Darwin made it
	possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."  That
	doesn't mean that Darwin made it impossible to be anything but an
	atheist.  For example, Darwinism and theism can easily be
	reconciled by those who, like Asa Gray and Charles D. Walcott,
	misunderstand Darwinian evolution as a benevolent process
	divinely ordained for the purpose of creating humans.  (Gould
	himself has been particularly emphatic in correcting that sort of
	misunderstanding.)  On the other hand, Darwinism does give
	atheists and agnostics a decisive advantage to the extent that
	belief in God's existence is a matter of logic and evidence.

       "Those who really understand Darwinism, but still have
	spiritual inclinations, have the option of making a religion out
	of evolution.  Theodosius Dobzhansky -- Gould's prime example of
	a Christian evolutionist -- actually exemplified the religious
	dimension of Darwinism.  Dobzhansky discarded the traditional
	Christian conception of God, spiritualized the evolutionary
	process, and worshipped the glorious future of evolution."

   It appears that from the outset, Dr. Johnson is clearly claiming that
one cannot be a theist and accept the accuracy of Darwinian evolution (i.e.,
"God as an active creator is absolutely ruled out by the blind watchmaker
thesis.").  Dr. Johnson does correctly (IMHO) note that Darwinism does not a
priori lead to atheism.  Yet Dr. Johnson's choice of example (Darwinism can be
reconciled with theism if one doesn't understand Darwinian evolution), and
subsequent comment "Those who really understand Darwinism, but still have
spiritual inclinations, have the option of making a religion out of evolution"
further strengthens the self-same implication that one CANNOT accept the
accuracy of Darwinian evolution and remain a theist.*

   Through his initial claim and choice of examples Dr. Johnson has provided,
it appears that his true belief lies closer to the following claim, "Darwin
made it impossible for anyone to be a Christian.  One could misunderstand
Darwinian evolution and be a Christian, or one could understand and accept the
accuracy of Darwinian evolution and mistakenly claim to be a Christian, but
one CANNOT have it both ways."

   To sidestep the blunt claim of atheism appears in this instance to be
nothing more than a rhetorical ploy to dress the traditional Creationist
canard "Evolution -> Atheism", in more suitable robes.  Attempting to make the
claim more palatable by replacing a direct assault on religious beliefs by an
indirect assault on the same in no way removes the offensiveness of the claim.
Maybe it is just me, but I find claim "Evolution is incompatible with
Christianity" (no matter who politely one phrases it) to be just as offensive
as the claim "Evolution requires atheism".  It is also, IMHO, no more correct.

   It is possible that I have misread Dr. Johnson's claim (hence my use of
qualifying verbs such as "appears").  If such is the case, I hereby apologize
for any difficulties my problems with comprehension have caused and would be
grateful for any explication Dr. Johnson could provide on this point.  If,
however, I have correctly discerned the intended message behind Dr. Johnson's
writing then I feel either evidence for the underlying claim should be
provided, or an apology for the claim should be made.  This I ask for out of
precisely the same mandates of fair-mindedness and mutual respect that Dr.
Johnson believes is vital for substantive discussions on this topic.

>Phillip E. Johnson
>  School of Law, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720

* If this is NOT what Dr. Johnson is trying to imply, I am curious as
  the point he is trying to make by pointing out the various "evolutionists'"
  (e.g., Gould) beliefs have a religious tinge.  If one can be a Christian
  (or indeed of any religious faith) and accept the accuracy of Darwinian
  evolution, then it would seem clear that Darwinian evolution by and of
  itself is not a religiously motivated theory.

--
Matt Brinkman
brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov