Phillip Johnson interview

From: Keith B Miller (
Date: Thu Apr 26 2001 - 15:19:52 EDT

  • Next message: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: Phillip Johnson interview"

    This is a rather clear statement by Johnson that evolution must be
    disproved in order to be able to accept a creator God.


    >Here's a quote from an interview at:
    >CJ: Let's shift the discussion just a bit. At the bare bones level, what
    >essentials do you believe the Christian must maintain in the question of human
    >origins in order to remain essentially Christian?
    >Phil: Well, the first thing, I guess, is the role of God as our Creator. The
    >evolutionary naturalists have been telling us that you don't need God in the
    >system, you don't need a creator in the system because these purposeless forces
    >can do it all. If they are right on that, then I would tend to think that
    >probably Christianity should be given up as a bad show, considering most of the
    >people that come to believe that that's what they conclude too. If God is an
    >illusion and the Bible's just been wrong about everything, and religious belief
    >is just believing what you want to believe and the facts show you that it
    >didn't happen that way, well then the logical conclusion it seems to me would
    >be not to try to save Christianity but to give it up as a mistake. Now, that's
    >one reason I was so interested in this field. Because, now, on the other hand,
    >if it turns out that the evolutionary theory is what's mistaken, and natural
    >selection has no creative power, and you have this whole scientific culture
    >that has been believing something dead against the evidence because that's
    >something they want to believe, then even without knowing any more about it, I
    >would say that the theistic and Biblical worldview has been tremendously
    >validated. That is to say it's been validated in the sense that you do need a
    >creator after all, but even more, what's been validated is the biblical view
    >that it's a major part of the human project to get rid of the creator; because
    >their deeds were evil, they did not want to honor god as God, and so instead
    >they imagined various forms of idolatry and nature worship of which Darwinian
    >evolution is just the most prevalent modern form. So, at this point, you say
    >that not only has it been revealed that science points to the reality of a
    >creator after all, but the enormously bad and self-deceptive thinking of the
    >Darwinian evolutionist is something straight out of Romans 1. Without going any
    >further than that, I'd say that the biblical worldview has been enormously
    >affirmed. When it comes to questions like "Is it really important that the
    >Genesis chronology be upheld?" or whatever, I'm more inclined to "hang loose"
    >on that. For one thing, I'm very much opposed to restrictions on considering
    >the evidence, and so it might be very convenient for us theologically if the
    >Genesis chronology is true, and so, for that reason we might want to believe
    >it, but that doesn't mean that the evidence necessarily supports it. If the
    >evidence overwhelmingly says that that chronology is not true, then we can't
    >make it true by wishful thinking. So, my basic inclination is to follow the
    >evidence wherever it leads, and then live with the consequences of that. What
    >has happened so far when we've done that is that the materialistic and
    >naturalistic view that dominates our culture has been shown to be
    >self-deceptive in every way. So I'm inclined to think we can afford to follow
    >that program forward courageously without being afraid of what the facts will

    Keith B. Miller
    Department of Geology
    Kansas State University
    Manhattan, KS 66506

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 26 2001 - 15:18:13 EDT