Home » Culture, Darwinism, News » He said it: Phillip Johnson on the true “ID vs. Darwinism” conflict. Nail. Head.

He said it: Phillip Johnson on the true “ID vs. Darwinism” conflict. Nail. Head.

For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

. . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. “The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism,” First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

First Things used to publish ideas like this.

See also: First Things: From Part of the Solution to Part of the Problem

Barr v. Arrington

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

One Response to He said it: Phillip Johnson on the true “ID vs. Darwinism” conflict. Nail. Head.

  1. Richard Lewontin would agree with the a priori assumption that materialism is true.

Leave a Reply