Dare to question the materialist high priests
A review of The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations
of Naturalism by Phillip E. Johnson Intervarsity Press Illinois, 2000.
by Royal Truman
University of Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson is a leading figure in the
Intelligent Design movement, also referred to as ‘The Wedge’.1
His earlier books have been widely read, and identified logical flaws in evolutionary
theory.2-4
Underlying axiom of evolution
In his latest critique, he identifies and dissects a key philosophical assumption
which constrains the ways data is allowed to be interpreted in the physical sciences.
He describes this as
‘a philosophy called naturalism or materialism or physicalism or simply
modernism. Under any of those names this philosophy assumes that in
the beginning were the fundamental particles that compose matter, energy and the
impersonal laws of physics. To put it negatively, there was no personal God who
created the cosmos and governs it as an act of free will. It God exists at all,
he acts only through inviolable laws of nature and adds nothing to them. In consequences,
all the creating had to be done by the laws and the particles, which is to say by
some combination of random chance and lawlike regularity.’ (p. 13).
This contrasts with the common image of scientists being objective and impartial
analysts who allow the empirical facts to speak for themselves. Quite the contrary,
if chance plus immutable natural laws must be capable of explaining all
reality, then absurd explanations become acceptable given the lack of a better alternative
within the permissible possibilities.
Johnson sets a specific goal for himself in writing this book:
‘In my mind the most important thing is to get people to ask the right question,
not to try to tell them how to answer the questions. … For example, any person
who is willing to focus on the problem of genetic information, to understand what
it is and how it may be created, is on the right track whether or not he or she
is ready to give up on the prospect of a naturalistic solution to the problem’
(p. 16).
‘Science’, in the strong sense, deals with repeatable events under precisely
controlled conditions, and these testable results are to be valid across time, location
and experimenter. Although all conclusions should still be treated as tentative
descriptive models, even incomplete understanding can lead to advances in technology
and medicine. Christians certainly approve of this form of knowledge acquisition,
when applied in beneficial ways not contrary to God’s commandments. However,
scientific methodologies available to interpret historical and geological events
are, unfortunately, far less reliable.
Hard-core science, which allows us to send astronauts to the moon and to build bridges
many kilometres long, cannot provide answers to many important human problems.
‘First, science at best gives us only factual or instrumental knowledge, not
knowledge of ultimate purposes. From science we may learn a great deal about how
the world works, and how to get whatever it is that we want, but unless we have
another source of knowledge we will have no way to reason about the purpose of life
or exactly what it is that a rational person ought to want.’
(p. 37).
The materialist wishes to speak with authority, with the kind of credibility we
reserve for empirical, repeatable research conclusions. He is forced to the conclusion
that intelligence is derived from the properties of inanimate matter and that the
existence of sentient beings just happened. Are such scientists equipped to answer
the deepest issues which trouble us? Why should my personal worth and value be greater
than that of a virus, which isn’t even truly living? Do my thoughts accurately
reflect an external reality? Does death end it all? Are good and evil merely arbitrary
concepts of transient definition? Do I really have a free will? Will I be held accountable
by God some day for my actions? The answers the materialist offers to these most
important of questions are based on unverifiable and self-serving assumptions. The
conclusions follow the unjustified premises and nothing more.
Origin of information
Chapter 2 deals with the need to explain the presence of information in
the biological world. Most people recognize that many processes, such as a seed
growing, healing of a wound or communication among foraging bees of where to find
nutrients, demonstrate purposeful, and non-random processes. In the words of Johnson,
‘By information I mean a message that conveys meaning, such
as a book of instructions’ (p. 42). ‘Information is not matter,
although it is imprinted in matter’ (p.123).
Johnson also exposes a common fallacy:
‘Instructions in the fertilized egg control embryonic development from the
beginning and direct it to a specific outcome. This "full and complete set
of instructions" employs the material processes of chemistry
and physics but is not created by those processes. Similarly, the
software in a computer employs natural processes to generate a word processing document,
but the software has to be written by an intelligent agent. The relevant question
is not whether miracles are required once the instructions are in operation but
whether intelligence was required to create the instructions in the first place’
(p. 134).
Others have expressed this in terms of the difference between normal operational
(process) science and origin science.5
For completeness, we should not overlook the fact that in addition to the coded,
process-guiding instructions themselves, complex machinery is needed to both decode
the messages received and then to act upon them. And in living organisms, this decoding
machinery is itself encoded.
Some people have fallen into a ‘god-of-the-gaps’ logical flaw. Whatever
science appeared able to explain did not seem to require the intervention
of God and one constantly sought examples which could not (yet) be explained. This
is poor logic and we should never resort to miraculous intervention for operational
science. But it is different for origin science. For example, upon finding a lock
and key which work together we can describe the mechanics of operation
but this hardly does away with the need for an intelligent agent who designed both
to work together.
Professor Gitt6-8 has explained the use and characteristics of coded
messages, which can be used only if the necessary decoding apparatus is also available
for the receiving party. The receiver can be inanimate, such an engineering control
system, or intelligent, such as a reasoning person. The purpose of these messages
is to guide physical change (non-intelligent receiver) or to provide insight (intelligent
receiver) and thus bridge gaps over time or location. Such coded information systems
can only arise by intelligent agency.
In keeping with his intention, Johnson asks us to pose the right questions. Where
does genetic information come from? Life would be inconceivable if all the necessary
repair and replication mechanisms biological organisms need were not genetically
provided for. And there are many biological functions today that the evolutionary
model must claim did not exist in the remote past: eyesight, sonar, flight, muscle,
sexual reproduction, motors, gecko’s ‘sticky’ feet, etc. These
functions require a multitude of unique genes not found in ‘primitive bacteria’.
Many biological processes can only function once all the individual parts are in
place concurrently, a phenomenon professor Behe9,10 describes as ‘irreducibly
complex’. Irreducibly complex processes require a large number of proteins
at the same time, where there would be no Darwinist selection advantage for any
individual polypeptide, only the completed ensemble.
In chapter 2, the usual discredited ‘proofs’ of evolution are discussed:
bacterial antibiotic resistance (p. 46), the peppered months of England and the
beaks of finches on the Galápagos Islands. These are identified as
micro-evolutionary changes in which no new features appear, and the changes reflect
merely modification in population proportions. However, the term ‘micro-evolution’
would be best expunged, because, as shown, Johnson has correctly pointed out that
the issue is not small vs big changes, but whether the changes add new
genetic information. But this key issue is often obscured by evolutionists’
word-plays:
‘Textbooks typically define evolution not as information-creation but merely
as change—either "change over time" or "change in gene frequencies"’
(p. 43).
Bacteria are often researched in the hope of finding empirical evidence for evolution,
due to their rapid reproduction rates. However,
‘When a mutation makes a bacterium resistant to antibiotics, for example,
it does so by disabling its capacity to metabolize a certain chemical. There is
a net loss of information and of fitness in a general sense, but there is a gain
in fitness in specific toxin-filled environments’ (p. 46).
This is a point which Dr Lee Spetner11 has analysed in depth.
Variability within limited kinds offers no hope for the evolutionist camp:
‘One convenient way of expressing this distinction is to say that the standard
examples of micro-evolution are all of horizontal evolution, while
the grand creative process should be called vertical evolution’
(p. 128).
‘Variation and diversification occur, probably to a greater extent in the
remote past than in the present, but only within the confines of the basic type’
(p. 132).
Kansas kerfuffle
In chapter 3, Johnson discusses the decision by the 10-member Kansas board of education
in 1999 to allow a more balanced treatment of how evolutionary ideas and their alternatives
can be presented at the pre-college levels. One could hardly fail to notice the
almost hysterical, even panicky reaction nation-wide on the part of the established
materialist camp. What exactly could evoke such a reaction? Johnson describes some
of the guilty sentences.
‘Whereas the drafting committee had defined science as the human activity
of seeking natural explanations, the board substituted that "science
is the human activity of seeking logical explanations for what
we observe in the world around us"’ (p. 68).
Or, quoting from the board’s amendments,
‘Natural selection can maintain or deplete genetic variation but does not
add new information to the existing genetic code’ (p. 69).
And later, 8th graders should
‘Understand that natural selection acts only on the existing genetic code
and adds no new genetic information’ (p. 69).
Contrary to the mass media’s claims, teaching of evolutionist theory was not
to be in any way forbidden, or in any way restricted. This conforms with what US
taxpayers on average apparently wish:
‘A Gallup poll conducted in late June 1999 revealed that Americans favor teaching
creationism in public schools along with evolution by 69 percent to 29 percent.
They also oppose by 55 percent to 40 percent replacing evolution altogether with
creationism, a margin that I am sure the science educators do not find very reassuring’
(p. 78).
The objective issue is simply whether one particular evolutionary viewpoint, Darwinism,
should be presented as fact, and which tolerates neither scepticism nor competition;
or whether ‘sometimes the authority of "science" is used to validate
claims that are based largely on speculation’ (p. 70).
Surely every student should be challenged to judge:
‘Is the "evolution" that biologists observe merely a matter of variation
within preexisting species or types, or is it a genuine creative process that over
time can produce new complex organs and new kinds of organism?’ (p. 72).
The materialist Ãœberreaktion to the possibility of open and
candid discourse exposed their intellectual insecurities. The mass media shamelessly
distorted the real issues by replacing the word Darwinism by science
and pretending modern research and technology were under attack.
‘For example, Scientific American editor-in-chief John Rennie urged
scientists on university admissions committees to notify the Kansas governor and
the state board of education that "in light of the newly lowered education
standards in Kansas, the qualifications of any students applying from that state
in the future will have to be considered very carefully"’ (p. 80).
Such reactions are particularly ironic, since one has difficulty identifying any
technological or medical advance which uniquely derived from evolutionist theory.
A doctor or engineer would hardly recommend doing nothing and letting problems solve
themselves à la evolution. Quite the opposite, we engage in ‘Intelligent
Design’ every time a series of steps are planned to attain a desired goal.12,13
Just-so story-telling
Johnson challenges us to ask the right questions. One might be, whether any useful
biological insights or explanation can be credited to materialism at all. In my
experience, whenever the same gene is found to be almost 100% identical across all
or most organisms, the cell biology textbooks call them ‘highly conserved’
or ‘highly conserved in evolution’. Are we any wiser through such post-facto
rationalizations? Or does this merely camouflage the obvious question: if there
has been virtually no change in the alleged couple of billion years for all organisms
where this gene is found, then presumably there is no room for variation for the
resulting protein. Close is not good enough and apparently renders the owner unviable.
Well now, how did the precise base-pair sequence arise by chance in the first place!?
The intermediates would be worthless, interfere with other biochemical processes,
and waste both energy and building material.
As Walter ReMine points out so clearly,14,15 the evolutionist has a seemingly
endless smorgasbord of stories which can be used post-facto.
If organisms not related by a phylogenic evolutionary tree show dramatically similar
features one reads this is due to ‘evolutionary convergence’. However,
if organisms in very similar environments fail to display apparent similarities,
convergence had not occurred. Such rationalizations are free of substance and an
inadequate substitute for hard evidence.
Materialist bias
One might ask who has such intense vested interests in excluding the possibility
of the existence of a creative God from all discussion.
‘In 1996 historian Edward Larson and journalist Larry Witham repeated Leuba’s
survey of scientists … The first results were nearly identical to those in
Leuba’s 1914 survey: 40 percent of scientists-in-general still say they believe
in a prayer-answering God and in personal immortality’ (p.85).
‘But in 1998 Larson and Witham repeated the survey for elite scientists, defined
specifically (since the directory no longer gives stars to the greater scientists)
as those who have been elected to membership in the National Academy of Sciences
… Disbelief in supernatural theism among Academy members was over 90 percent,
and for biologists it was 95 percent’ (p. 86).
Ernst Mayr surveyed his own Harvard colleagues about their beliefs: ‘"It
turned out we were all atheists", he recalls’ (p. 86).
Peer-reviews for promotion and publication are dominated by the leading members
of a scientific community. So are key positions as department heads and on editorial
boards. Furthermore, there is a form of selection based on mentor relationships.
A bright biology candidate with Christian convictions would consider carefully whether
Harvard meets his or her needs. And an outspoken creationist is going to have a
very difficult time rising in the academic ranks within élite universities
without the support of an influential figure, which we know will generally be an
evolutionist. These high priests of modern thought apparently believe they have
much to lose, both in terms of prestige and financial reward, if their ‘explanations’
should be discredited.
Peace offer
In an attempt to defuse resistance on the part of the majority of Americans, of
whom only 10% claim to be atheists, leading evolutionists such as Professors Gould
and Dawkins offer some empty compromises.
‘Gould proposed a peace-making formula he called NOMA—non-overlapping
magisteria’ (p. 95).
Johnson, the astute law professor, offers good advice in such proposals:
‘Whenever one party to a conflict proposes to settle it with a formula of
"separate but equal", the other party had better look carefully to see
who is going to draw the boundary and where it is going to be drawn’ (p. 96).
‘It is not merely a matter of letting a tiny bit of religion into a science-dominated
world. If heaven really exists, then the authority
to determine how to get to heaven is vastly more important than the authority to
say how the mundane cosmos works, since the latter deals only with earthly knowledge
that will soon pass away’ (p. 98).
So of course,
‘Gould takes for granted that all such questions are within the magisterium
of science’ (p. 98).
‘Behind the power play stands a philosophy that bars religion from claiming
that there is a supernatural creator (much less one who was incarnated in Jesus),
a divinely infused soul, a life after physical death or a source of divine revelation
such as inspired Scripture’ (p.99).
‘For example, Richard Dawkins commented that science is compatible with religion
if the latter means only feelings of awe at the wonders of the universe or the fundamental
laws of physics’ (p.100).
Christian beliefs are to be relegated to the realm of feelings with no basis in
the real universe—a heavy price for peace with the materialist who claims
to speak for science. Johnson makes clear this is unacceptable.
‘But a teaching authority cannot be based on subjective feelings, ungrounded
speculation or empty words. If theologians are to teach, they must have a source
of knowledge independent of that possessed by science. And if they are going to
assert the existence of such a cognitive territory, they must be prepared to defend
it’ (p.102).
Let me add the obvious. In defining what science is, the materialist is not authorised
to determine for the Christian the rules by which it may be practised. The goal
is to discover and describe true causes and not deliberately exclude the possibility
of intelligent agency.
‘They [the Darwinists] realise that it is safer to allow God a shadowy existence
in human subjectivity than to run the risk that this very threatening presence will
burst into objective reality. That is when we hear the standard vague reassurances
that "many people believe in both God and evolution", or that "science
does not say that God does not exist", or that "science and religion are
separate realms"’ (p.141).
Why it matters
Chapter 4 exposes where materialist philosophy inevitably leads. Since we are nothing
but a collection of complex biological processes, there is no unifying self,
no real me. Physical causes produce new proteins, nerves are stimulated—the
individual is an illusion. Furthermore,
‘In that case it is equally unwise to ground morality on the dogma that there
is a self that reasons and makes moral choices’ (p. 117).
Where are desire, choice, or will of any kind supposed to have come from?
‘If in the beginning were the particles, chance and the laws of physics—and
nothing else—then everything that has happened since must be
the products of those fundamental causal factors’ (p.119).
The very assumption that man has the capacity of coherent thought and his mind is
able to correctly map an external reality to mental states has no metaphysical basis
for the materialist. Thoughts and reasoning become a mathematical function of deterministic
laws plus random chemical behaviour.
‘The irony is that eliminative materialism itself is fatal to science, since
it implies that even the scientists are not really conscious and that their boasted
rationality is really rationalization’ (p. 119).
To complete the circle of confusion the materialist brings upon himself, one could
ask to justify how a collection of neurons firing away ensures the ability to determine
that atoms and natural laws themselves exist, and indeed whether there is even such
a thing as neurons. Johnson states how the Bible offers the correct grounds for
rational, and scientific thinking:
‘Evolutionary science has made many attempts to explain religion in general,
or Christianity in particular, on naturalistic assumptions. Now it is time to return
the favor, by allowing theology to explain why science is so reliable in some ways,
and so disappointing in others, and why Darwinian science in particular has come
to such a dead end. The place to begin is … in the opening Gospel of John.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without
him was not anything made that was made" (Jn 1:1, RSV)’ (p.151).
Since ‘what can be known about God is plain to [all people], because God has
shown it to them … Romans 1:20-23’ (p. 153), the atheist must surround
himself with those also wishing to exclude God from consideration.
‘The equally atheistic Sir Francis Crick warns in his autobiography that "biologists
must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved"’
(p. 153).
Eventually, everyone must confront the question our Saviour himself asked: ‘"Who
do men say that I am?" As long as naturalist reasoning governs all inquiry,
Jesus’ question has little importance’ (p. 158).
This book does not hide the author’s conviction that the Bible is God’s
inspired message to guide human behaviour and thinking. Many would profit by posing
the key questions: are the materialistic claims founded on anything more than arbitrary
rules and speculations? Are the resulting conclusions consistent with what my heart
and mind tell me?
References
- Some ‘Intelligent Design’ web sites are:
http://www.arn.org/
http://www.IntelligentDesignnetwork.org/
http://www.discovery.org/
(Discovery Institute).
- Johnson, P., Darwin on Trial, Regnery Gateway, Washington, DC, 1991.
- Johnson, P., Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, InterVarsity Press,
Downers Grove, Illinois, 1997.
- Oard, M., Review of Defeating Darwinism, Journal of Creation
12(1):28-29, 1998.
- Thaxton, C.B., Bradley, W.L. and Olsen, R.L., The Mystery of Life’s Origin,
pp. 200-217, Philosophical Library Inc., New York, 1984.
- Gitt, W., In the Beginning was Information, Christliche Literature-Verbreitung
e.V., Bielefeld, 1997.
- Truman, R., The problem of information for the theory of evolution: Has Dawkins
really solved it? <http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.htm>;
July 14, 1999.
- Gitt, W., Information, Science and Biology, Journal of Creation 10(2):181-187,
1996. Currently being updated.
- Behe, M.J., Darwin’s Black Box: the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution,
A Touchstone Book, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY, 1996.
- Ury, T.H., Review of Darwin’s Black Box, Journal of Creation
11(3):283-291, 1997.
- Spetner, L., Not By Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution,
The Judaica Press, Inc., Brooklyn, NY, 1997-8. See also review by Wieland, C., Creation
20(1):50-51, 1997.
- Dembski, William A., The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small
Probabilities, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1998.
- Truman, R., Divining design: A review of The Design Inference: Eliminating chance
through small probabilities by William A. Dembski, Journal of Creation
13(2):34-39,1999.
- ReMine, W.J., The Biotic Message: Evolution versus Message Theory, St.
Paul Science, St. Paul, MN, 1993.
- Batten, D., Review of The Biotic Message, Journal of Creation
11(3):292-298, 1997.
|
