by Phillip E. Johnson
Man and Creation: Perspectives on Science and Theology
1993


This paper was originally delivered as a lecture at a symposium at
Hillsdale College, in November 1992.


Papers from the Symposium were published in the collection Man and Creation: Perspectives on Science and Theology (Bauman ed. 1993), by Hillsdale College Press, Hillsdale MI 49242.


There is a popular television game show called "Jeopardy," in which the
usual order of things is reversed. Instead of being asked a question to
which they must supply the answer, the contestants are given the answer
and asked to provide the appropriate question. This format suggests an
insight that is applicable to law, to science, and indeed to just about
everything. The important thing is not necessarily to know all the
answers, but rather to know what question is being asked.

That insight is the starting point for my inquiry into Darwinian evolution
and its relationship to creation, because Darwinism is the answer to two
very different kinds of questions. First, Darwinian theory tells us how a
certain amount of diversity in life forms can develop once we have various
types of complex living organisms already in existence. If a small
population of birds happens to migrate to an isolated island, for example,
a combination of inbreeding, mutation, and natural selection may cause
this isolated population to develop different characteristics from those
possessed by the ancestral population on the mainland. When the theory is
understood in this limited sense, Darwinian evolution is uncontroversial,
and has no important philosophical or theological implications.

Evolutionary biologists are not content merely to explain how variation
occurs within limits, however. They aspire to answer a much broader
question-which is how complex organisms like birds, and flowers, and human
beings came into existence in the first place. The Darwinian answer to
this second question is that the creative force that produced complex
plants and animals from single-celled predecessors over long stretches of
geological time is essentially the same as the mechanism that produces
variations in flowers, insects, and domestic animals before our very eyes.
In the words of Ernst Mayr, the dean of living Darwinists, "transspecific
evolution [i.e., macroevolution] is nothing but an extrapolation and
magnification of the events that take place within populations and
species." Neo-Darwinian evolution in this broad sense is a philosophical
doctrine so lacking in empirical support that Mayr's successor at Harvard,
Stephen Jay Gould, once pronounced it in a reckless moment to be
"effectively dead." Yet neo-Darwinism is far from dead; on the contrary,
it is continually proclaimed in the textbooks and the media as
unchallengeable fact. How does it happen that so many scientists and
intellectuals, who pride themselves on their empiricism and
open-mindedness, continue to accept an unempirical theory as scientific
fact?

The answer to that question lies in the definition of five key terms. The
terms are creationism, evolution, science, religion, and truth. Once we
understand how these words are used in evolutionary discourse, the
continued ascendancy of neo-Darwinism will be no mystery and we need no
longer be deceived by claims that the theory is supported by "overwhelming
evidence." I should warn at the outset, however, that using words clearly
is not the innocent and peaceful activity most of us may have thought it
to be. There are powerful vested interests in this area which can thrive
only in the midst of ambiguity and confusion. Those who insist on defining
terms precisely and using them consistently may find themselves regarded
with suspicion and hostility, and even accused of being enemies of
science. But let us accept that risk and proceed to the definitions.
The first word is creationism, which means simply a belief in creation. In
Darwinist usage, which dominates not only the popular and profession
scientific literature but also the media, a creationist is a person who
takes the creation account in the Book of Genesis to be true in an very
literal sense. The earth was created in a single week of six 24-hour days
no more that 10,000 years ago; the major features of the geological were
produced by Noah's flood; and there have been no major innovations in the
forms of life since the beginning. It is a major theme of Darwinist
propaganda that the only persons who have any doubts about Darwinism are
young-earth creationists of this sort, who are always portrayed as
rejecting the clear and convincing evidence of science to preserve a
religious prejudice. The implication is that citizens of modern society
are faced with a choice that is really no choice at all. Either they
reject science altogether and retreat to a pre-modern worldview, or they
believe everything the Darwinists tell them.

In a broader sense, however, a creationist is simply a person who believes
in the existence of a creator, who brought about the existence of the
world and its living inhabitants in furtherance of a purpose. Whether the
process of creation took a single week or billions of years is relatively
unimportant from a philosophical or theological standpoint. Creation by
gradual processes over geological ages may create problems for Biblical
interpretation, but it creates none for the basic principle of theistic
religion. And creation in this broad sense, according to a 1991 Gallup
poll, is the creed of 87 per cent of Americans. If God brought about our
existence for a purpose, then the most important kind of knowledge to have
is knowledge of God and of what He intends for us. Is creation in that
broad sense consistent with evolution?

The answer is absolutely not, when "evolution" is understood in the
Darwinian sense. To Darwinists evolution means naturalistic evolution,
because they insist that science must assume that the cosmos is a closed
system of material causes and effects, which can never be influenced by
anything outside of material nature-by God, for example. In the beginning,
an explosion of matter created the cosmos, and undirected, naturalistic
evolution produced everything that followed. From this philosophical
standpoint it follows deductively that from the beginning no intelligent
purpose guided evolution. If intelligence exists today, that is only
because it has itself evolved through purposeless material processes.
A materialistic theory of evolution must inherently invoke two kinds of
processes. At bottom the theory must be based on chance, because that is
what is left when we have ruled out everything involving intelligence or
purpose. Theories which invoke only chance are not credible, however. One
thing that everyone acknowledges is that living organisms are enormously
complex-far more so than, say, a computer or an airplane. That such
complex entities came into existence simply by chance is clearly less
credible than that they were designed and constructed by a creator. To
back up their claim that this appearance of intelligent design is an
illusion, Darwinists need to provide some complexity- building force that
is mindless and purposeless. Natural selection is by far the most
plausible candidate.

If we assume that random genetic mutations provided the new genetic
information needed, say, to give a small mammal a start towards wings, and
if we assume that each tiny step in the process of wing-building gave the
animal an increased chance of survival, then natural selection ensured
that the favored creatures would thrive and reproduce. It follows as a
matter of logic that wings can and will appear as if by the plan of a
designer. Of course, if wings or other improvements do not appear, the
theory explains their absence just as well. The needed mutations didn't
arrive, or "developmental constraints" closed off certain possibilities,
or natural selection favored something else. There is no requirement that
any of this speculation be confirmed by either experimental or fossil
evidence. To Darwinists just being able to imagine the process is
sufficient to confirm that something like that must have happened.

Richard Dawkins calls the process of creation by mutation and selection
"the blind watchmaker," by which label he means that a purposeless,
materialistic designing force substitutes for the "watchmaker" deity of
natural theology. The creative power of the blind watchmaker is supported
only by very slight evidence, such as the famous example of a moth
population in which the percentage of dark moths increased during a period
when the birds were better able to see light moths against the
smoke-darkened background trees. This may be taken to show that natural
selection can do something, but not that it can create anything that was
not already in existence. Even such slight evidence is more than
sufficient, however, because evidence is not really necessary to prove
something that is practically self-evident. The existence of a potent
blind watchmaker follows deductively from the philosophical premise that
nature had to do its own creating. There can be argument about the
details, but if God was not in the picture something very much like
Darwinism simply has to be true, regardless of the evidence.

That brings me to my third term, science. We have already seen that
Darwinists assume as a matter of first principle that the history of the
cosmos and its life forms is fully explicable on naturalistic principles.
This reflects a philosophical doctrine called scientific naturalism, which
is said to be a necessary consequence of the inherent limitations of
science. What scientific naturalism does, however, is to transform the
limitations of science into limitations upon reality, in the interest of
maximizing the explanatory power of science and its practitioners. It is,
of course, entirely possible to study organisms scientifically on the
premise that they were all created by God, just as scientists study
airplanes and even works of art without denying that these objects are
intelligently designed. The problem with allowing God a role in the
history of life is not that science would cease, but rather that
scientists would have to acknowledge the existence of something important
which is outside the boundaries of natural science. For scientists who
want to be able to explain everything-and "theories of everything" are now
openly anticipated in the scientific literature- this is an intolerable
possibility.

The second feature of scientific naturalism that is important for our
purpose is its set of rules governing the criticism and replacement of a
paradigm. A paradigm is a general theory, like the Darwinian theory of
evolution, which has achieved general acceptance in the scientific
community. The paradigm unifies the various specialties that make up the
research community, and guides research in all of them. Thus, zoologists,
botanists, geneticists, molecular biologists, and paleontologists all see
their research as aimed at filling out the details of the Darwinian
paradigm. If molecular biologists see a pattern of apparently neutral
mutations, which have no apparent effect on an organism's fitness, they
must find a way to reconcile their findings with the paradigm's
requirement that natural selection guides evolution. This they can do by
postulating a sufficient quantity of invisible adaptive mutations, which
are deemed to be accumulated by natural selection. Similarly, if
paleontologists see new fossil species appearing suddenly in the fossil
record, and remaining basically unchanged thereafter, they must perform
whatever contortions are necessary to force this recalcitrant evidence
into a model of incremental change through the accumulation of
micromutations.

Supporting the paradigm may even require what in other contexts would be
called deception. As Niles Eldredge candidly admitted, "We paleontologists
have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive
change], all the while knowing it does not."[ 1] Eldredge explained that
this pattern of misrepresentation occurred because of "the certainty so
characteristic of evolutionary ranks since the late 1940s, the utter
assurance not only that natural selection operates in nature, but that we
know precisely how it works." This certainty produced a degree of
dogmatism that Eldredge says resulted in the relegation to the "lunatic
fringe" of paleontologists who reported that "they saw something out of
kilter between contemporary evolutionary theory, on the one hand, and
patterns of change in the fossil record on the other."[ 2] Under the
circumstances, prudent paleontologists understandably swallowed their
doubts and supported the ruling ideology. To abandon the paradigm would be
to abandon the scientific community; to ignore the paradigm and just
gather the facts would be to earn the demeaning label of "stamp collector."

As many philosophers of science have observed, the research community does
not abandon a paradigm in the absence of a suitable replacement. This
means that negative criticism of Darwinism, however devastating it may
appear to be, is essentially irrelevant to the professional researchers.
The critic may point out, for example, that the evidence that natural
selection has any creative power is somewhere between weak and
non-existent. That is perfectly true, but to Darwinists the more important
point is this: If natural selection did not do the creating, what did?
"God" is obviously unacceptable, because such a being is unknown to
science. "We don't know" is equally unacceptable, because to admit
ignorance would be to leave science adrift without a guiding principle. To
put the problem in the most practical terms: it is impossible to write or
evaluate a grant proposal without a generally accepted theoretical
framework.

The paradigm rule explains why Gould's acknowledgment that neo-Darwinism
is "effectively dead" had no significant effect on the Darwinist faithful,
or even on Gould himself. Gould made that statement in a paper predicting
the emergence of a new general theory of evolution, one based on the
macromutational speculations of the Berkeley geneticist Richard
Goldschmidt.[ 3] When the new theory did not arrive as anticipated, the
alternatives were either to stick with Ernst Mayr's version of neo-
Darwinism, or to concede that biologists do not after all know of a
naturalistic mechanism that can produce biological complexity. That was no
choice at all. Gould had to beat a hasty retreat back to classical
Darwinism to avoid giving aid and comfort to the enemies of scientific
naturalism, including those disgusting creationists.

Having to defend a dead theory tooth and nail can hardly be a satisfying
activity, and it is no wonder that Gould lashes out with fury at people
such as myself, who calls attention to his predicament.[ 4] I do not mean
to ridicule Gould, however, because I have a genuinely high regard for the
man as one of the few Darwinists who has recognized the major problems
with the theory and reported them honestly. His tragedy is that he cannot
admit the clear implications of his own thought without effectively
resigning from science.

The continuing survival of Darwinist orthodoxy illustrates Thomas Kuhn's
famous point that the accumulation of anomalies never in itself falsifies
a paradigm, because "To reject one paradigm without substituting another
is to reject science itself."[ 5] This practice may be appropriate as a
way of carrying on the professional enterprise called science, but it can
be grossly misleading when it is imposed upon persons who are asking
questions other than the ones scientific naturalists want to ask. Suppose,
for example, that I want to know whether God really had something to do
with creating living organisms. A typical Darwinian response is that there
is no reason to invoke supernatural action because Darwinian selection was
capable of performing the job. To evaluate that response, I need to know
whether natural selection really has the fantastic creative power
attributed to it. It is not a sufficient answer to say that scientists
have nothing better to offer. The fact that scientists don't like to say
"we don't know" tells me nothing about what they really do know.
I am not suggesting that scientists have to change their rules about
retaining and discarding paradigms. All I want them to do is to be candid
about the disconfirming evidence and admit, if it is the case, that they
are hanging on to Darwinism only because they prefer a shaky theory to
having no theory at all. What they insist upon doing, however, is to
present Darwinian evolution to the public as a fact that every rational
person is expected to accept. If there are reasonable grounds to doubt the
theory such dogmatism is ridiculous, whether or not the doubters have a
better theory to propose.

To believers in creation, the Darwinists seem thoroughly intolerant and
dogmatic when they insist that their own philosophy must have a monopoly
in the schools and the media. The Darwinists do not see themselves that
way, of course. On the contrary, they often feel aggrieved when
creationists (in either the broad or narrow sense) ask to have their own
arguments heard in public and fairly considered. To insist that
schoolchildren be taught that Darwinian evolution is a fact is in their
minds merely to protect the integrity of science education; to present the
other side of the case would be to allow fanatics to force their opinions
on others. Even college professors have been forbidden to express their
doubts about Darwinian evolution in the classroom, and it seems to be
widely believed that the Constitution not only permits but actually
requires such restrictions on academic freedom. To explain this bizarre
situation, we must define our fourth term: religion.

Suppose that a skeptic argues that evidence for biological creation by
natural selection is obviously lacking, and that in the circumstances we
ought to give serious consideration to the possibility that the
development of life required some input from a pre-existing, purposeful
creator. To scientific naturalists this suggestion is "creationist" and
therefore unacceptable in principle, because it invokes an entity unknown
to science. What is worse, it suggests the possibility that this creator
may have communicated in some way with humans. In that case there could be
real prophets-persons with a genuine knowledge of God who are neither
frauds nor dreamers. Such persons could conceivably be dangerous rivals
for the scientists as cultural authorities.

Naturalistic philosophy has worked out a strategy to prevent this problem
from arising: it labels naturalism as science and theism as religion. The
former is then classified as knowledge, and the latter as mere belief. The
distinction is of critical importance, because only knowledge can be
objectively valid for everyone; belief is valid only for the believer, and
should never be passed off as knowledge. The student who thinks that 2 and
2 make 5, or that water is not made up of hydrogen and oxygen, or that the
theory of evolution is not true, is not expressing a minority viewpoint.
He or she is ignorant, and the job of education is to cure that ignorance
and to replace it with knowledge. Students in the public schools are thus
to be taught at an early age that "evolution is a fact," and as time goes
by they will gradually learn that evolution means naturalism.

In short, the proposition that God was in any way involved in our creation
is effectively outlawed, and implicitly negated. This is because
naturalistic evolution is by definition in the category of scientific
knowledge. What contradicts knowledge is implicitly false, or imaginary.
That is why it is possible for scientific naturalists in good faith to
claim on the one hand that their science says nothing about God, and on
the other to claim that they have said everything that can be said about
God. In naturalistic philosophy both propositions are at bottom the same.
All that needs to be said about God is that there is nothing to be said of
God, because on that subject we can have no knowledge.

Our fifth and final term is truth. Truth as such is not a particularly
important concept in naturalistic philosophy. The reason for this is that
"truth" suggests an unchanging absolute, whereas scientific knowledge is a
dynamic concept. Like life, knowledge evolves and grows into superior
forms. What was knowledge in the past is not knowledge today, and the
knowledge of the future will surely be far superior to what we have now.
Only naturalism itself and the unique validity of science as the path to
knowledge are absolutes. There can be no criterion for truth outside of
scientific knowledge, no mind of God to which we have access.

This way of understanding things persists even when scientific naturalists
employ religious-sounding language. For example, the physicist Stephen
Hawking ended his famous book A Brief History of Time with the prediction
that man might one day "know the mind of God." This phrasing cause some
friends of mine to form the mistaken impression that he had some
attraction to theistic religion. In context Hawking was not referring to a
supernatural eternal being, however, but to the possibility that
scientific knowledge will eventually become complete and all-encompassing
because it will have explained the movements of material particles in all
circumstances.

The monopoly of science in the realm of knowledge explains why
evolutionary biologists do not find it meaningful to address the question
whether the Darwinian theory is true. They will gladly concede that the
theory is incomplete, and that further research into the mechanisms of
evolution is needed. At any given point in time, however, the reigning
theory of naturalistic evolution represents the state of scientific
knowledge about how we came into existence. Scientific knowledge is by
definition the closest approximation of absolute truth available to us. To
ask whether this knowledge is true is therefore to miss the point, and to
betray a misunderstanding of "how science works."

So far I have described the metaphysical categories by which scientific
naturalists have excluded the topic of God from rational discussion, and
thus ensured that Darwinism's fully naturalistic creation story is
effectively true by definition. There is no need to explain why atheists
find this system of thought control congenial. What is a little more
difficult to understand, at least at first, is the strong support
Darwinism continues to receive in the Christian academic world. Attempts
to investigate the credibility of the Darwinist evolution story are
regarded with little enthusiasm by many leading Christian professors of
science and philosophy, even at institutions which are generally regarded
as conservative in theology. Given that Darwinism is inherently
naturalistic and therefore antagonistic to the idea that God had anything
to do with the history of life, and that it plays the central role in
ensuring agnostic domination of the intellectual culture, one might have
supposed that Christian intellectuals (along with religious Jews) would be
eager to find its weak spots.

Instead, the prevailing view among Christian professors has been that
Darwinism-or "evolution," as they tend to call it-is unbeatable, and that
it can be interpreted to be consistent with Christian belief. And in fact
Darwinism is unbeatable as long as one accepts the thought categories of
scientific naturalism that I have been describing. The problem is that
those same thought categories make Christian theism, or any other theism,
absolutely untenable. If science has exclusive authority to tell us how
life was created, and if science is committed to naturalism, and if
science never discards a paradigm until it is presented with an acceptable
naturalistic alternative, then Darwinism's position is impregnable within
science. The same reasoning that makes Darwinism inevitable, however, also
bans God from taking any action within the history of the Cosmos, which
means that it makes theism illusory. Theistic naturalism is
self-contradictory.

Some hope to avoid the contradiction by asserting that naturalism rules
only within the realm of science, and that there is a separate realm
called "religion" in which theism can flourish. The problem with this
arrangement, as we have already seen, is that in a naturalistic culture
scientific conclusions are considered to be knowledge, or even fact. What
is outside of fact is fantasy, or at best subjective belief. Theists who
accommodate with scientific naturalism therefore may never affirm that
their God is real in the same sense that evolution is real. This rule is
essential to the entire mindset that produced Darwinism in the first
place. If God exists He could certainly work through mutation and
selection if that is what He wanted to do, but He could also create by
some means totally outside the ken of our science. Once we put God into
the picture, however, there is no good reason to attribute the creation of
biological complexity to random mutation and natural selection. Direct
evidence that these mechanisms have substantial creative power is not to
be found in nature, the laboratory, or the fossil record. An essential
step in the reasoning that establishes that Darwinian selection created
the wonders of biology, therefore, is that nothing else was available.
Theism is by definition the doctrine that something else was available.
Perhaps the contradiction is hard to see when it is stated at an abstract
level, so I will give a more concrete example. Persons who advocate the
compromise position called "theistic evolution" are in my experience
always vague about what they mean by "evolution." They have good reason to
be vague. As we have seen, Darwinian evolution is by definition unguided
and purposeless, and such evolution cannot in any meaningful sense be
theistic. For evolution to be genuinely theistic it must be guided by God,
whether this means that God programmed the process in advance or stepped
in from time to time to give it a push in the right direction. To
Darwinists evolution guided by God is a soft form of creationism, which is
to say it is not evolution at all. To repeat, this understanding goes to
the very heart of Darwinist thinking. Allow a preexisting supernatural
intelligence to guide evolution, and this omnipotent being can do a whole
lot more than that.

Of course, theists can think of evolution as God-guided whether
naturalistic Darwinists like it or not. The trouble with having a private
definition for theists, however, is that the scientific naturalists have
the power to decide what that term "evolution" means in public discourse,
including the science classes in the public schools. If theistic
evolutionists broadcast the message that evolution as they understand it
is harmless to theistic religion, they are misleading their constituents
unless they add a clear warning that the version of evolution advocated by
the entire body of mainstream science is something else altogether. That
warning is never clearly delivered, however, because the main point of
theistic evolution is to preserve peace with the mainstream scientific
community. The theistic evolutionists therefore unwitting serve the
purposes of the scientific naturalists, by helping persuade the religious
community to lower its guard against the incursion of naturalism.
We are now in a position to answer the question with which this lecture
began. What is Darwinism? Darwinism is a theory of empirical science only
at the level of microevolution, where it provides a framework for
explaining such things as the diversity that arises when small populations
become reproductively isolated from the main body of the species. As a
general theory of biological creation Darwinism is not empirical at all.
Rather, it is a necessary implication of a philosophical doctrine called
scientific naturalism, which is based on the a priori assumption that God
was always absent from the realm of nature. As such evolution in the
Darwinian sense is inherently antithetical to theism, although evolution
in some entirely different and non-naturalistic sense could conceivably
have been God's chosen method of creation.

In 1874, the great Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge asked the
question I have asked: What is Darwinism? After a careful and thoroughly
fair-minded evaluation of the doctrine, his answer was unequivocal: "It is
Atheism." Another way to state the proposition is to say that Darwinism is
the answer to a specific question that grows out of philosophical
naturalism. To return to the game of "Jeopardy" with which we started, let
us say that Darwinism is the answer. What, then, is the question? The
question is: "How must creation have occurred if we assume that God had
nothing to do with it?" Theistic evolutionists accomplish very little by
trying to Christianize the answer to a question that comes straight out of
the agenda of scientific naturalism. What we need to do instead is to
challenge the assumption that the only questions worth asking are the ones
that assume that naturalism is true.

Notes

[1] Niles Eldredge, Time Frames (Heinemann, 1986), 144.
[2] Ibid., 93.
[3] Stephen Jay Gould, "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution
Emerging?" Paleobiology, 6 (1980), 119-130, reprinted in Maynard Smith,
ed., Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin (W. H. Freeman, 1982).
[4] See Stephen Jay Gould, "Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge," Scientific
American, (July 1992), 118-122. Scientific American refused to publish my
response to this attack, but the response did appear in the March 1993
issue of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, the journal of the
American Scientific Affiliation.
[5] Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 2d ed.,
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), 79.