Re: An answer from Phil

Gene Dunbar Godbold (
Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:06:13 -0500 (EST)

According to John W. Burgeson:

> This was the question:
> Q: I have a question for Phil Johnson which others on the list have also
> asked:
> How can you categorically rule out the possibility of theistic
> evolution, i.e. the idea that God can direct outcomes non-mechanically in
> accordance with His will, but in a way that looks like random evolution to
> us?
> This was Phil's answer:
> "I don't "categorically rule out" anything; it's the scientific
> materialists who do that, by insisting that science is by definition
> committed to materialism or naturalism. I've explained this repeatedly in
> two books and in numerous articles, which are available at:

I recently read Terry Gray's Review of "Darwin On Trial" and Glenn posted
some relevant comments that included something in "First Things" that
Prof. Johnson wrote. The problem that they both point out is that Johnson
says this reassuring thing that he has reiterated here and then, in other
places, sounds like a Communist at a Party rally--denouncing the theistic
evolution guys (I don't think I am one...yet) and proclaiming that his
view will triumph in history, etc. Very strange.