A senior professor of law, Phillip Johnson, spoke recently about the way he came to recognise verbal "tricks of the trade" in the writings and lectures of evolutionists. Lawyers are trained to spot errors of logic and dubious thinking designed to lead the unwary astray. Johnson, now an emeritus professor from the University of California at Berkeley, is the figurehead of the Intelligent Design Movement, which affirms that intelligent design can be discerned in living (and non-living) things and that design recognition is a matter for science to address. Intelligent Design is having a significant impact in the US and is regularly targeted by evolutionists who claim that the design inference was completely destroyed by Darwinism.
His remarks were made at a "welcome dinner" in London on October 26th 2004 before about 100 guests. Professor Johnson and Dr Andrew Snelling, creation-oriented geologist and specialist in radiometric dating issues, were being welcomed at the start of a UK speaking tour . All the UK creationist groups were represented, indicating a broad groundswell of support for this venture. The Elim Pentecostal Church has taken a major initiative in organising and underwriting this tour. Meetings around the UK were scheduled for the following three weeks.
| Phillip Johnson explained his initial reactions at reading "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins in the late 1980s. It was the style of Dawkins' argument that caught his attention: starting with observations and finishing with big assumptions. The idea that God might have something to do with origins was summarily dismissed as superstition and frequently Dawkins reached conclusions on philosophical rather than on empirical grounds. The philosophy, Johnson concluded, was naturalism: "nature is all there is". He explained that, as a lawyer, he was "quite familiar" with this style of advocacy! He realised that Darwinism's ability to explain all biological data was on a par with Marxism's explanations of social and economic data, and also Freud's explanations of the human psyche. In each of these three global theories, philosophical reasoning predominates to give an explanation for everything! |  |
This and related experiences stimulated much thought on the strategy for a Christian response. One major challenge is how to disturb the belief that Darwinism (or Neodarwinism) is a child of science. Johnson found that Darwinists had two contradictory definitions of science. The first is that science "follows the evidence wherever it leads". The second is that "only natural causes can be considered". They are contradictory because when the evidence points to intelligent design, the second definition is brought in to exclude that avenue of thought.
A second part of the strategy relates to how we handle the polemical "Science vs the Bible" controversy. The big problem here is that the arguments are polarised and entrenched. Darwinists can multiply words about science starting with experimental data rather than the Bible and never have to examine their own fundamental approach to science. Alongside this, Christians have failed to provide a united voice on what the Bible actually says. This allows Darwinists to divide and rule, which they have been doing very effectively for decades.
The Intelligent Design approach is one that attempts to find common ground in the Christian world. It provides a platform where essential issues can be discussed without having to resolve differences between Christians. As an example of this, Phillip Johnson pointed to Andrew Snelling, with whom he was sharing the tour. Andrew's freedom to speak on issues is not affected, and "unity" does not mean we do not talk about issues we are passionate about!
| In his presentation, Andrew Snelling explained that whilst biologists are able to discuss design without needing to resolve age of the Earth questions, geologists have to address the issue of timescales. As a geologist by training and profession, he was always grappling with these questions. He pointed out that Darwin did not introduce deep time, for this had been done already by James Hutton and Charles Lyell. Modern-day students of geology are impressed with two sources of data relating to time. The first is the vastness of the rock record, with its associated fossils. The second comprises the results of radiometric dating, involving precise measurements and rigorous mathematical analysis. |  |
| Andrew on location in the Lake District (2003) |
Snelling pointed out that the vastness of the rock record is only evidence for deep time if we first assume that past geological processes operated at similar rates to today, as Hutton and Lyell claimed. Yet this is completely out of step with much contemporary geology, which is more ready to recognise unusual processes that acted over much shorter timescales.
However, Andrew's big interest is radiometric dating, and he described the results of the RATE project , a 10-year research programme to examine the foundations of this area of science. Whereas most published radiometric dates are derived from one or two dating methods, the new research has consistently made use of four major methods. The researchers have found that they always give different results, often with major discrepancies.
This research is to be published next year, and Snelling expressed the view that we need no longer be intimidated by the arsenal of evidence for deep time. We are at the stage where such an interpretation can be challenged effectively. Geologists seeking to integrate biblical history and geological data have great opportunities.
The positive reactions to the speakers indicated that their distinctive messages were timely and relevant. Some may find it strange that Intelligent Design can share the same platform as young-Earth creationism but, as Phillip Johnson remarked afterwards: "My goal is not to win the argument, but to help people ask the right questions and get them thinking differently".
David J. Tyler
November 2004
