---------- Forwarded Message ----------
From: Phillip E Johnson, INTERNET:philjohn@uclink.berkeley.edu
TO: John W. Burgeson, 73531,1501
DATE: 12/5/95 11:40 AM
RE: week 4
Sender: philjohn@uclink.berkeley.edu
Received: from uclink4.berkeley.edu by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
id MAA01196; Tue, 5 Dec 1995 12:25:50 -0500
Received: from uclink.berkeley.edu (uclink.berkeley.edu [128.32.155.3]) by uclink4.berkeley.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA03149 for <73531.1501@compuserve.com>; Tue, 5 Dec 1995 09:25:49 -0800
Received: (from philjohn@localhost) by uclink.berkeley.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06032 for 73531.1501@compuserve.com; Tue, 5 Dec 1995 09:21:51 -0800
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 09:21:51 -0800
From: Phillip E Johnson <philjohn@uclink.berkeley.edu>
Message-Id: <199512051721.JAA06032@uclink.berkeley.edu>
To: 73531.1501@compuserve.com
Subject: week 4
Phillip E. Johnson October 17, 1995
Fourth week: Michigan and Ohio State
Monday, October 9. The morning was free at the convenient bed-and-
breakfast where I was staying with fellow speaker Os Guinness,
across the street from the Rackham Auditorium (1200-seat) were the
main events of this week's Veritas Forum were being held. I was
the first speaker on a week schedule of evening lectures that
included Os, Hugh Ross, Eleanor Stumpf, and Fritz Schaefer. My
first event was a lunch talk to about 70 Christian faculty, a
higher-than-anticipated turnout. Then there was a mid-afternoon
talk at the law school. This was not a faculty colloquium,
however, which would have been a much better idea, but an open-to-
the-public event in a classroom that drew a small crowd of about
40. Despite the poor turnout, the questions were quite good. The
evening lecture had a fine crowd of about 800, and the question
period went on late into the evening. I have heard since that the
entire week was very successful, drawing large audiences each
evening.
Tuesday, October 10. After a morning flight to Columbus, Ohio, I
was driven by organizers Howard van Cleave and Tom Lewis to Dayton
and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. There was a lunch at the
Officers' Club with about 30, including as a guest the chairman of
biology at nearby Wright State University, who was described as a
seeker attending a Bible study with some of the officers. I gave
a talk about the relationship between evolution and naturalistic
philosophy, and the biologist predictably had his hand up right
away. He accused me of misrepresenting the relation of naturalism
to biology, claiming that biologists are perfectly free to invoke
God as a cause and that he himself does so. I am seldom taken
aback by questions or comments, but this one really baffled me.
The usual response is that biologists defend naturalism as
essential to the very definition of science (see OSU experience
below), and here was a reputable biologist flatly denying the
connection. Moreover, he did not strike me as somebody who would
be following in the footsteps of Dean Kenyon (whose story I then
told). I had a feeling that he really meant something other that
what he was saying (like the more usual "we aren't saying anything
about religion, but God is not eligible for scientific
consideration), but I could hardly tell the man that he doesn't
know what goes on in his own classroom. I still don't know what to
make of this.
After lunch we saw the wonderful Air Museum on the base
grounds, with all sorts of military aircraft from early models to
the B-1 and Stealth bombers. Then I gave a late afternoon lecture
to about 300 officers at the Air Force Institute of Technology,
mostly engineers in graduate training, before heading on to
Columbus and the home of OSU Chemical Engineering (biotechnology)
Professor Jeff Chalmers and M.D. wife Julie, where I stayed
throughout the week.
Wednesday, Oct. 11. First event was a lunch with OSU Christian
Faculty, typical brown-bagger with free-wheeling discussion. At
2:00 Howard van Cleave took me over to the OSU radio station, where
I did the usual hour talk and call-in show (same as last year) with
the very genial (but challenging) host Fred Anderly.
After rest the main event was the evening debate with
philosophy professor Neil Tennent, one of the leading figures in
the OSU philosophy department. It was held in a very large lecture
hall that was mostly filled. Tennent (who had read RITB but not
DOT) defended naturalism as equivalent to rationality, described me
as ignorant for not having made a detailed investigation of
evolutionary science (as is done in DOT), made all sorts of claims
of success for Darwinian theories that I call just-so-stories, and
questioned my motives (hidden agenda of right-wing morality) -- in
short, the usual stuff. His main argument was that I was
committing the "ostrich fallacy," by arguing that scientific truth
should be ignored if it has unwelcome philosophical or social
implications. Of course I have never made such an argument,
although I do argue that the presence of far-reaching consequences
is a good reason for looking carefully at the evidence, to make
sure we are not being bluffed. I did my best to counter what
seemed to me the more important points in this barrage, kept up my
cheery good humor, and in general put on the kind of performance
you can see in the Johnson/Provine video. I do not know how to
evaluate winners and losers in this kind of encounter; I would
score every debate I have had as a draw. The meaning of the event
is that it occurred, and another step was taken towards
legitimating the subject -- theistic realism.
Thursday, October 12. Lunch was with the OSU AAUP "Committee A"
(academic freedom), chaired by ebullient biochemistry professor
Dana Wrensch, who was the omnipresent "star" of the day's events.
The purpose of this intimate lunch was to discuss my article in the
current AAUP journal *Academe* on the academic freedom aspects of
theistic realism. The two biology professors present were most
supportive, suprisingly, as was everyone except a senior medical
school physiology professor who was courteous but clearly nervous
and agitated. He finally came out with his concern, which was that
if the theistic position were allowed in scientific subjects it
would go too far, perhaps "take over," and eventually threaten
scientific funding. I remarked that it sounded as if he were
fearful that there is a flaw in naturalistic metaphysics that might
be exposed, and we all had a lively conversation. I made it clear
that I considered the AAUP to be an ally and am grateful for the
support that organization gave in the Dean Kenyon case and by
publishing my article. I am confident that the AAUP will never
defend the proposition that the funding needs of science require
that academic freedom not extend to putting naturalism itself on
the table for debate.
The really unusual event in the schedule was the afternoon
colloquium (in the same big hall as the debate the previous
evening). The panel consisted of myself, Dana Wrensch (who had a
veritable library of books in front of her on the table), Neil
Tennent (again) and Robert Di Silvestro (a Christian professor of
Nutrition, well-versed in the defects of Darwinism and active in
the Veritas Forum events this year and last). The audience was
sparse this time, but a good proportion of those present were
professors -- thanks to Dana, who pressed her biology colleagues to
attend.
The event itself was rather like a dream -- lacking in
coherence but packed with suggestive events. I gave an
introductory statement just to summarize what theistic realism is,
stressing how the scientists at Cornell had "refuted" me by
extrapolating from selective breeding to prove the whole
naturalistic story of creation. My purpose was to set up Dana, who
had told me she was was preparing a scientific paper showing that
the study of induced mutations shows that the "mutation" side of
the neo-Darwinian mutation/selection mechanism is a total loser;
all the mutations studied are neutral or harmful. (There's more to
it than that, but I'll have to wait until Dana sends me the paper
to give a more adequate description of her position.) Dana, whose
conversational and platform style is machine-gun-rapid-stream-of-
consciousness, proceeded to say that injecting theism into science
is ridiculous, that neo-Darwinism is untenable, and a whole lot
else that I do not know how to summarize. The scientific content
of her talk seemed to back up everything I said, although she
several times referred to naturalistic thinking as rational and
theism as irrational.
Neil and Bob tried in their own different ways to turn this
happening into something straightforward, but the questions from
the audience came from every direction. A large percentage of the
questions and comments, especially from the biology professors, had
to do with philosophical objections to the idea of God. One
biology present later complained to one of the faculty sponsors
that the event was an offense to his discipline, especially
considering that the very idea of a creator was demolished as long
ago as the late 18th century. Tennent seemed to argue both that
God was out of bounds in both science and philosophy and that he
would take the same position even if he believed in God.
Scientific evidence hardly entered the discussion, certainly not in
any coherent way. I felt like an intellectual poltergeist, who had
set all sorts of ungovernable spirits moving through the
auditorium.
This feeling was increased when Dana, who knew nothing of my
involvement with the HIV/AIDS controversy, remarked to me in one of
our whispered exchanges that the scientific establishment was
indeed intolerant, as shown by its inexcusable treatment of Peter
Duesberg, whom she thought to be fundamentally right about the
inadequacy of the HIV paradigm. We discussed this subject further
at dinner. After dinner I appeared at the undergraduate meeting of
Campus Crusade, the auditorium packed with at least 600, to give a
talk (in interview format) and answer questions. A long day.
Friday-Sat., Oct. 13-14. The day began with a breakfast meeting
for financial supporters of the Veritas Forum, chaired by founder
Jerry Mercer. John Mark Reynolds and I had stayed with Jerry a
year ago on a memorable trip, and Jerry was glad to hear of what
has happened since. The Veritas Forum idea (see Chapter 10 of
RITB) is expanding to 11 more universities, and the plan is to have
each locality become self-supporting. After a morning break I did
a colloquium for law faculty and guests on Richard Posner's
philosophy of pragmatism. Because this happened to be a break week
at the law school, there were as many guests as law professors, but
I felt at home and most welcome in this setting. A surprise guest
at the law school was Tom Woodward, driving spirit behind the
Spanish translation of DOT and the first Dobson broadcast, who was
visiting family and preparing to enter a Ph.D program in
Communications at Florida Southern University.
[Parenthetical Comment: Organizers of my campus visits should
be aware that a departmentally-sponsored academic colloquium with
professors is in the long run more productive than a public lecture
or debate, esp when the public event is not officially sponsored.
Events with big audiences have their value, but what really counts
at universities is the ongoing faculty dialogue. When faculty
members see theistic realism become a legitimate part of the give-
and-take of academic discussion, and observe that the sky does not
immediately fall just because naturalism has been called into
question, a whole world of new possibilities opens up. This is
particularly true with regard to law professors, who have so much
contact with lawmakers, and with whom I always feel at home.]
The most original part of this varied OSU week was Friday
night and Saturday morning. My host Jeff Chalmers and other
faculty had prepared a colloquium on the subject of what actions
Christian faculty should be taking in the light of what I have been
saying. Besides the dozen or so OSU faculty plus spouses and
guests there were 3 very thoughtful science professors who had come
all the way from little Huntington College in Indiana. There was
a Friday night dinner after which personal stories and outlooks
were shared, speakers being Jeff Chalmers; Chemistry Prof Terry
Gustafson; Agricultural Economics Professor Scott Irwin; campus
Christian worker and "AI" Ph.D Matt de Jongh; and me. Then
Saturday morning there was a colloquium from 9:00 AM that went on
until and through lunch, actually until I had to leave to catch my
4:20 PM plane to Austin via Atlanta. I was on the spot throughout
the day as everyone energetically tested the soundness of my
thinking. I emphasized that the theistic realist movement is
decentralized and non-directive; people just get the vision, and
stay in conversation with other people who understand the need to
challenge the naturalistic domination of the world of ideas, and
eventually they figure out how to play their part. My host Jeff
Chalmers described me an "enigma," meaning I think that I am
difficult to categorize in the customary liberal/conservative
continuum. Good.
I wrote most of this memoir on the evening plane to Austin.
I have an energetic program upon arrival in Texas, starting with a
couple of sermons Sunday morning. After Texas, Kathie and I meet
midair, figuratively speaking, on the way to Spain. This is an
unusual way to live; perhaps not everyone would enjoy it.