Kansas Citizens for Science                                     www.kcfs.org

The Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture and the Wedge Strategy

Phillip Johnson, a law professor from California, is a member of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC). The CRSC is a group of academic professionals who believe that science in general, and the theory of evolution in particular, are responsible for a materialistic, atheistic philosophy whose "destructive cultural consequences" in our society must be reversed.

The CRCS has a strategy called the Wedge for replacing scientific materialism with a theistic science. According to the CRSC, modern science portrays humans as animals who inhabit a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces, not as moral or spiritual beings. They see the cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism as devastating. They seek to "renew science and culture" by overthrowing materialism and its cultural legacies.

Phillip Johnson bills himself and his attack on evolutionary theory as the "cutting edge" of the wedge. The press release for his talks explain that "during the 1980s, Johnson's Christian faith began to flourish, and with it a desire to challenge the prevailing academic and intellectual culture, or worldview. He was looking for a vehicle through which to mount that challenge.... " At that point, Johnson devised his thesis that evolution "was carried not by evidence, but by dazzling rhetoric. Since rhetoric is the stuff lawyers are noted for, Johnson knew he had his topic."

It is, however, Johnson's arguments that are "dazzling rhetoric", not the theory of evolution. The rhetorical hammer Johnson has selected is a philosophical one: he claims that scientists, by merely using the scientific method to investigate the physical world, become, by definition, materialistic atheists who believe that the physical world is all there is and that there is no God. The only remedy, he says, is to believe that special creation by "intelligent design" is responsible for the evolution of life. CRSC's goal is to use "intelligent design" to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Johnson explicitly rejects a number of commonly held beliefs. He rejects the idea that God has used the evolutionary process to bring about His intended design. He also rejects the widely accepted belief that science investigates only one aspect of the world - the physical -, while our spiritual nature apprehends other aspects of the world - the moral, aesthetic and religious. Johnson uses his arguments to create a division among us, with no middle ground. He insists that one must choose between being an atheistic supporter of evolution or a theistic opponent of evolution.

Johnson's Tactics

Johnson uses the tactics of a skilled courtroom lawyer. He has taken on a case (evolution vs. intelligent design), and now it is his job is to convince the jury (the public) that he is right. In the interest of "convicting" evolution, he oversimplifies, distorts, and divides into either-or issues. He does not use the methods of science - specific hypotheses are not offered, evidence is not presented, research is not proposed.

One of Johnson's tactics is to quote scientists who are atheists. However, he ignores the many prominent scientists who are committed and devout theists and who fully support evolutionary theory. While some people might believe that scientific knowledge reinforces their atheism, many more say that scientific knowledge reinforces their belief in and reverence for God. How one reconciles scientific knowledge with one's religious beliefs is not itself a scientific activity, but Johnson refuses to recognize this.

Another of Johnson's tactics is to refuse to discuss the details of "intelligent design theory". His "evidence for design" is primarily negative - this or that feature can't possibly be explained by natural processes, so it must have been designed. He offers no positive hypotheses about how or when "design" might have happened, or how science might use "design" in further research.

He also refuses to discuss the obvious religious questions of who the "designer" is and what the purposes of the design are. It is part of the Wedge strategy to not discuss the theological implications of "intelligent design" For instance, in an article in Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity entitled "The Wedge", Johnson writes, "the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion. ...This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact." And, in an article in the New York Times, Laurie Goodstein writes, after interviewing Johnson "These new creationists avoid one pitfall of their predecessors by not positing, at least publicly, the identity of the creator. "My decision is simply to put it off," Mr. Johnson said, "and I recommend that to others."

However, in other articles, Johnson is more candid. In an article in Citizen Magazine, Johnson says "Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message. ... The evangelists do what they do very well, and I hope our work opens up for them some doors that have been closed."

Johnson's beliefs about evolution and religion

Johnson believes that the theory of evolution cannot be reconciled with Christian beliefs. In an article in Communiqué Johnson said, "It is central to Christianity that the creation was meant to culminate in human beings who are created in the image of God and who are different from everything else. ... Evolutionary thinking is profoundly anti-Christian."

However, millions of people do not believe that the theory of evolution conflicts with Christian theology. Many members of the evangelical Christian community have significant theological problems with Johnson's conception of intelligent design. Johnson has avoided any substantial theological dialogue with these Christian critics.

For instance, KSU Professor Keith Miller, a geologist and evangelical Christian, has criticized "intelligent design" for implying that God can only be found when scientific explanations are seemingly inadequate.

CRSC's long-term agenda to extend design theory into the social sciences.

Part of the Wedge strategy is to expand "theistic science" into the social sciences, law and education after it has made inroads in challenging the biological sciences. Johnson and the CRSC assume that if materialism is overthrown, there is only one alternative to replace it. In the Communique interview, Johnson says, "If it turns out that the evolutionary theory is what's mistaken, ... I would say that the theistic and Biblical worldview has been tremendously validated."

CRSC member William Dembski gives this example of applying "intelliegnt design" to other areas:

The chilling idea here is that science can, and should, investigate what constitutes "natural" ethics and morals, and that science can discover which behaviors transgress the intended purposes of human design. Many people would agree that our society would benefit from a reinvigoration of ethics, but few would feel comfortable with science being the vehicle by which, somehow, "correct" ethical and moral behavior were established.

We have widely varying visions of human nature. Most people would be skeptical about believing that one particular vision rather than another could actually be verified by scientific means. In fact, most people would, I hope, be very wary of opening up science to this enterprise. Just as trying to add religion to science via "intelligent design" would make bad science, trying to add an element of scientific verification to religion would make bad religion. Johnson and the CRSC's attempt to combine the two is good for neither, and should be resisted by all who wish for both science and religion to mutually prosper.