I have finally been able to get a copy of Phil Johnson's new book _Reason
in the Balance_, published by InterVarsity Press. Jim Bell has been giving
us quips from it so I started looking for it in the bookstores with no
success. Finally, I borrowed it from a friend of mine who had purchsed it
directly from IVP.
I'm about half through it and would encourage us to read and discuss it
(perhaps Phil will re-join us for the discussion). As I suspected I'm in
agreement with the vast majority of what Phil says and think that it is a
timely and helpful work (hopefully I won't change my mind after reading the
second half). Since I disagree with so little of it, in a second reading,
I plan to make note of everything that I do disagree with as a springboard
for discussion with Phil and others.
Phil will be pleased to learn that the underlying philosophy of his book is
what undergirds the educational philosophy at Calvin. In my opinion, Phil
(among others) has discovered and now is popularizing in broader
evangelicalism ways of thinking similar to that of the Dutch Calvinists at
the turn of the century: Abraham Kuyper, Hermann Dooyeweerd, and others.
[In the research notes for Chapter 2, Phil mentions the work of Roy
Clouser, a philosopher in this tradition with which Phil express tentative
profound agreement. Interestingly, Clouser is much more open to
evolutionary views than Phil seems to be.] Of course, these go back to
John Calvin, Augustine, and the Apostle Paul! Calvin College is rooted in
this way of thinking and although we may disagree on some of the specifics,
I think that the overall project is the same. I will have no problem using
Phil's book as a positive statement of our position in our January course
on theism and naturalism. I say this not to take away from the
significance of Phil's project or to claim some kind of priority to the
Dutch Reformed tradition (I'm a proselyte myself), but merely to point out
a strong affinity.
Phil and I continue to disagree as to the plausibility of macroevolution
within a theistic framework, so I have some fight to pick with his blind
watchmaker chapter, but by and large I agree with his characterization of
both Dawkins and Gould. On the big issues (and I think that is what Phil
is mainly talking about in this book), I agree with Phil Johnson rather
than Dawkins and Gould.
To nit-pick on our area of disagreement, however, I'd like to point out and
comment on the footnote on page 77:
"The blind watchmaker thesis makes it *possible* to be an intellectually
fulfilled atheist by supplying the necessary creation story. It does not
make it *obligatory* to be an atheist, because one can imagine a Creator
who works through natural selection. Since the consensus of contemporary
evolutionary biologists is that evolution is purposeless and unguided,
however, it is doubtful that a Creator would have anything to do. A
Creator who merely sets a process in motion and theoreafter keeps hands off
is easily ignored."
Thank you, Professor Johnson, for the crumb tossed my way. However, it
seems to me that the last two sentences in this footnote are a huge non
sequitur. The consensus of contemporary evolutionary biologists on God's
role may have very little to do with his actual role. Thus, the conclusion
"it is doubtful that a Creator would have anything to do" does not actually
follow from the premise of this sentence. Perhaps in the minds of the
contemporary biologists it does, but if we are theistic realists (as I
claim to be) then our conclusion must be based on what is real and not the
consensus of the biologists. Thus if the Creator does work through natural
selection, he could still be doing a great deal concerning the origin,
development and providential governing of the universe (as the scriptures
teach and as any good theist worthy of the label would acknowledge). Given
this, the last sentence is moot. Those of us who advocate that the Creator
has worked through natural selection and other mechanisms describable by
science do not believe that God merely sets the process in motion and
thereafter keeps hands off.
Here are the chapter titles:
1. Is God Unconstitutional?
2. The Established Religious Philosophy of America
3. The Grand Metaphysical Story of Science
4. Is There a Blind Watchmaker?
5. Theistic Naturalism & Theistic Realism
6. Realism & Rationality
7. Natural Law
8. Education
9. The Subtext of Contempt
10. The Beginning of Reason
Appendix: Naturalism, Methodological & Otherwise
Let's hope that the powers that be, especially our nation's judges will
read this book.
Terry G.
_____________________________________________________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Calvin College 3201 Burton SE Grand Rapids, MI 40546
Office: (616) 957-7187 FAX: (616) 957-6501
Email: grayt@calvin.edu http://www.calvin.edu/~grayt