Naturalism, evidence and creationism: The case of Phillip Johnson

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.     

The perils of misunderstood and incomplete information. A reply to Johnson and Johnson

This article challenges the methodology and conclusions of a 1991 article by Steven B. Johnson and Ronald C. Johnson (Ethology and Sociobiology 12: 211-220) regarding “Support and Conflict of Kinsmen in Norse Earldoms, Icelandic Families, and the English Royalty.” It replies to specific points raised by Johnson and Johnson and also presents general methodological guidance for nonhistorians seeking to use historical sources. The authors conclude that while the approach of Johnson and Johnson is a worthwhile one, their case is considerably weakened by failure to use sources properly with a full understanding of the cultural, social, and historical realities that these sources represent.