Johnson does attack naturalism, but we both are familiar with his eloquent
but obfuscatory terminology of "theistic naturalism", which is clever but
willfully confusing if used in a serious discussion. Suppose a key point in
a discussion I was pushing was that all my evolutionary creationist
opponents were "Christian atheists" -- would that count either as speaking
the truth or speaking in love? Yet this is very, very analogous to what
Johnson is saying.
So the two groups who may oppose Johnson's actions even while agreeing
utterly in rejecting naturalism are (1) TE/ECs, and (2) those who value
intellectual precision and charity over powerful rhetoric. Johnson has some
precision and some rhetoric -- a lot of what he says I can wholeheartedly
agree with -- but alas for the kingdom, much more of the latter. And IMHO,
and as someone with much more training in logic and philosophy than Johnson
[which are his claims to relevance here, remember], it really is hard to
avoid the conclusion that he's just doing what the most effective lawyers
do: using his strong verbal skills to persuade a non-expert jury.
It reminds me so much of his earlier "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" crusade. But
at least that one wasn't linked to the Gospel, so far as I recall.
If he would be more careful in what he says, he could be an unmitigated
asset. He does have some good points to make. But his flair for rhetorical
exaggeration and distortion hurts him amongst most scientists and
philosophers, even as it endears him to many lay Christians.
I'll be interested in seeing how theological history records his impact over
the long haul: more harm (poor science, sloppy philosophy, etc.)? or more
good (compelling demonstrating how presentations of evolution often front
for naturalism, how there is genuine uncertainty in the theory, how in
principle [to tone down his claim quite a lot] there can be scientific
alternatives to it)?
I just dearly wish he would offer us the best of both worlds. (I'm very
impressed with Dembski et al, along those lines, BTW. They seem
significantly more careful in their assertions. We'll see if their much
more serious work ends up with the big payoff that they hope for. I hope
so, just because it would be really cool :^>; but I don't yet believe so.)
John