Phillip E. Johnson
Phillip E. Johnson
Phillip E. Johnson was an American legal scholar and authority on criminal law who was the Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley. He co-founded the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) at the Discovery Institute and was one of the leaders of the intelligent design movement, along with William Dembski and Michael Behe. Johnson described himself as "in a sens
"If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this. … We call our strategy the "wedge."
"So the question is: "How to win?" Thats when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" — the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do."
"This [origins debate] isnt really, and never has been, a debate about science, its about religion and philosophy."
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
"We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator."
"The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created." Establishing that point isnt enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message."
"Were not trying to prove the character of God through science. Thats a bad idea. What Im trying to do is clear away the misunderstandings, the debris that prevent people from accepting that God who wants to accept them."
"I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world."
"The subject is not just the theory of evolution, the subject is the reality of God."
