Biology and Philosophy

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 543–559 | Cite as

Naturalism, evidence and creationism: The case of Phillip Johnson

  • Robert T. Pennock


Phillip Johnson claims that Creationism is a better explanation of the existence and characteristics of biological species than is evolutionary theory. He argues that the only reason biologists do not recognize that Creationist's negative arguments against Darwinism have proven this is that they are wedded to a biased ideological philosophy —Naturalism — which dogmatically denies the possibility of an intervening creative god. However, Johnson fails to distinguish Ontological Naturalism from Methodological Naturalism. Science makes use of the latter and I show how it is not dogmatic but follows from sound requirements for empirical evidential testing. Furthermore, Johnson has no serious alternative type of positive evidence to offer for Creationism, and purely negative argumentation, despite his attempt to legitimate it, will not suffice.

Key words

Creationism evidence evolution naturalism Phillip Johnson scientific methodology 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Berra, T. M.: 1990, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, Stanford, Stanford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bocarsly, A. et al.: 1993, ‘Ad Hoc Origins Committee's Letter to Colleagues’.Google Scholar
  3. Culliton, B.J.: 1989, ‘The Dismal State of Scientific Literacy’, Science 243, 600.Google Scholar
  4. Gould, S.J.: 1965, ‘Is Uniformitarianism Necessary?’, American Journal of Science 265, 223–228.Google Scholar
  5. Johnson, P.E.: 1990, Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism, U.S.A.: Haughton Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  6. Johnson, P.E.: 1991, Darwin on Trial, Washington, D.C., Regnery Gateway.Google Scholar
  7. Johnson, P.E.: 1992, ‘Darwinism on Trial’ (Video), Pasadena, CA, Reasons to Believe.Google Scholar
  8. Kitcher, P.: 1982, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism, U.S.A., The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Provine, W.B.: 1990, ‘Response to Phillip Johnson’, in P.E. Johnson, Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism, U.S.A., Haughton Publishing Company, pp. 19–22.Google Scholar
  10. Ruse, M.: 1982, Darwinism Defended, Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  11. Ruse, M.: ‘Nonliteralist Antievolution’, American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting. Symposium on “The New Antievolutionism”, February 13, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. Simpson, G.G.: 1970, ‘Uniformitarianism. An Inquiry into Principle, Theory, and Method in Geohistory and Biohistory’, in Kecht, M.K. and Steere, W.C. (eds.), Essays in Evolution and Genetics in Honor of Theodosius Dobzhansky, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, pp. 43–96.Google Scholar
  13. Strahler, A.N.: 1987, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy, Buffalo, N.Y., Prometheus Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert T. Pennock
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of PhilosophyThe University of Texas at AustinAustinU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations