Strange Bedfellows: Strategies Shared by Darwinists and Gender Traditionalists

Strange Bedfellows: Strategies Shared by Darwinists and Gender Traditionalists
By Rebecca Merrill Groothuis

• Appealing to Authority
• Inventing a Public Face
• Creating Categories for Ridicule
• Obscuring the Issues
• Camouflaging the Contradictions
• Conceptual Cover-Ups
• Concluding Thoughts
• Endnotes

[Rebecca Merrill Groothuis is the author of Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality (Baker, 1997) and of Women Caught in the Conflict: The Culture War Between Traditionalism and Feminism (Wipf and Stock Pub., 1997). She and her husband, Douglas Groothuis who teaches Ethics and Philosophy of Religion at Denver Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary, live in Littleton, Colorado.]

It all began with a dinner table conversation that my husband and I enjoyed with Phillip Johnson and his wife.[i] In listening to Johnson`s quiet complaints of how the prejudices and presuppositions of Darwinists twisted the public discourse on the question of life`s origin, I recognized a familiar pattern. Much of what Johnson had observed concerning the contours of the debate between Darwinists and creationists, I also had observed in the debate between those evangelicals who advocate traditional gender hierarchy and those who advocate gender equality.[ii]

Intrigued by the analogy, I determined to investigate further Johnson`s cultural analysis of the evolution/creation controversy. The more I learned about the debate raging in the scientific and political arenas over the origin of life, the better I understood the debate in the evangelical Christian community over the roles of men and women. Conversely, my own observations of the gender wars in the church enhanced my understanding of the "rules of the game" that are operative in the public debate over biological evolution. It seemed to me to be the same game, with different players waging war over a different set of key concepts.

In each case, the public discourse is controlled by the representatives of the dominant ideology (whether Darwinism or traditionalism) through the repeated and predictable use of a number of rhetorical strategies. Lines are drawn and categories are created to the effect that the views of dissenters are dismissed before they are seriously heard.

Of course, the mere fact that certain semantic strategies are employed to maintain an ideology`s cultural hegemony does not mean that the ideology itself is false. But it does mean that if the ideology is false, its falsity is being effectively concealed, and arguments in favor of rival positions are being unfairly silenced.

We need to be alert to the various rhetorical devices employed in public discourse, for the way people communicate can frequently do more to obscure than to inform. The following observations concerning some of these communication strategies have been culled both from Phillip Johnson`s insights on the Darwinism debate and my own extensive look into the gender issue within evangelicalism over the past several years.[iii]

Appealing to Authority

Proponents of the orthodoxy (i.e., the dominant ideology) typically defend their position by appealing to an authority that their challengers have no reason not to accept. Darwinists preface their assertions with, "Science has shown…" as readily and frequently as traditionalists intone, "The Bible says…." Frequent appeal to an unimpeachable authority dissuades the public from looking at the entire body of evidence that is available from these sources of authority–evidence that would, if examined carefully, cast doubt on the confident assertions of the orthodoxy.

The cultural hegemony of the orthodoxy is enforced by its "priesthood"–its "wise men" who interpret the meaning and significance of the evidence, whether scientific data or biblical texts. They are the authorities on the source of authority, and to question their dicta is tantamount to questioning the authority (science or the Bible) that they mediate to the common folk.

Consequently, anyone who accepts the source of authority to which the orthodoxy appeals is expected to accept the orthodoxy itself. A real scientist is, ipso facto, a Darwinist. A real Bible-believing Christian is, necessarily and by definition, a gender role traditionalist. Conversely, opponents of Darwinism are benighted souls who reject science in favor of mindless religious faith. Opponents of gender hierarchy are secularists or heretics who have no regard for God`s authoritative Word, but desire simply to twist and revise Scripture for their own perverse and pagan ends.

As a result of this maneuver, civil and informed dialogue is shut down. Debate is no longer an option. Alternative viewpoints are not countenanced. Darwinian evolution is the scientific position. Gender hierarchy is the biblical position. To deviate from these views is simply to be unscientific, or unbiblical.

The question at stake in the origins debate, however, is not whether science is a source of truth, but whether an honest application of scientific methodology really points to a naturalistic evolutionary theory of life`s origin and development. The question at stake in the gender debate is not whether the Bible is our absolute authority, but whether the doctrine of a spiritualized, universalized gender hierarchy is actually taught in Scripture, or is even compatible with what the Bible clearly states concerning the essential spiritual equality of all persons, the equal imaging of God by both male and female, the priesthood of all believers, and Christ as the one mediator and high priest between God and humanity.[iv]

Inventing a Public Face

Those who defend and maintain the dominant ideology typically create a PR definition of their position by reducing it to its indisputably evident elements. The orthodoxy is thereby made to appear irrefutable by any rational standard. In public rhetoric, evolution is commonly defined as changes in the history of life through breeding patterns, while traditionalism is described as the acknowledgment of male/female differences and the different roles that follow therefrom. The points at issue in these controversies, however, do not concern these simplistically true statements, but their implications–which are not made explicit but are merely assumed in their official, PR definitions.

For example, many Darwinists will cite evidence for microevolution (small-scale adaptive variation within a species) and then act as though they have proven macroevolution (the development of all life forms from a simple life form by this same natural, adaptive process, thus ruling out the need for a supernatural Creator).[v] Traditionalists will cite scientific studies showing psychological differences between men and women and then assume they have proven the "naturalness" of their own gender role restrictions. As Johnson observes, people are always "eager to underwrite value-laden philosophies by borrowing against the deserved prestige of experimental science."[vi]

Interestingly, Johnson`s response to the Darwinist claim in this regard is identical in logical structure to my response to the traditionalist claim.[vii] That is to say, it is not sufficient to note that genetic mutations occur, or that differences exist between men and women. A number of features must be shown to be true about genetic mutations and gender differences before any case can be made for Darwinism or gender hierarchy. As it happens, these features cannot all be shown to be true.

A simplistic, propagandistic description of an ideology distracts people from the contradictions and difficulties inherent to the ideology by focusing on its easily affirmed aspects: an observable process of natural variation can occur within a species as living things adapt to their environment; gender differences exist, there are roles unique to men and to women, role differences do not necessarily entail inequality, and so forth. The keepers of the orthodoxy then present these concepts as definitive of their position, and accuse their challengers of taking issue with these obviously true propositions. This approach portrays dissenters as unconscionably irrational, and completely sidesteps the heart of the disagreement.

Again, the issue in the gender debate is not whether men and women are different, but whether these differences logically and justifiably entail the inequitable roles, rights, and opportunities prescribed by traditionalists. The issue in the debate over evolution is not whether some natural variation occurs among living creatures, but whether the processes by which natural variations occur can reasonably be construed as the sole means by which all forms of life came into being.

Creating Categories for Ridicule

All too often, proponents of the orthodoxy respond to questions and criticisms with a distinctly superior air, as though the truth of their position were so patently clear that only a fool or a fanatic would dispute it. Opponents of Darwinian evolution are routinely represented as ignorant, literalistic, six-day creationists who deny the indisputable scientific fact that genetic changes occur across generations.[viii] Egalitarians are frequently caricatured as angry, maladjusted liberals who deny all differences between men and women, as well as the plain teaching of Scripture.

Prejudice against dissenters is, in fact, so intense that criticizing the orthodoxy can end a person`s career–whether it is in the field of scientific research or conservative Christendom.[ix] People in academia or the church who do not hold the orthodox view must be careful to distance themselves from the "religious" or the "feminist," lest they be grouped in one of these categories–and, thereby, dismissed from the realm of the credible.

Just as Darwinists frequently use "religion" as a surrogate word for "nonsense,"[x] so traditionalists tend to use "feminism" as a surrogate word for "heresy" or "secularism." In each case, a term with a legitimate (if controversial) meaning becomes a code word for the contemptuous. In this way, positions that challenge the orthodoxy are sneered at, not overtly, but in code, as it were. Johnson observes that "what cannot be done explicitly can often be done implicitly, by the imposition of categories and definitions that are anything but neutral in their impact."[xi] In other words, "a viewpoint or theory is marginalized when, without being refuted, it is categorized in such a way that it can be excluded from serious consideration."[xii]

Darwinists typically assert that creationism is a religious belief, and thus has to do with subjective feelings or values, while Darwinian evolution is scientific, which is a matter of objective knowledge or facts. Defining and compartmentalizing the issue in this way conveniently exempts Darwinists from having to give the case for creation a fair hearing.[xiii] Similarly, saying that "feminism" comes from modern culture and traditional gender roles from the Bible excuses traditionalists from seriously considering the case for biblical equality on its own merits. Traditionalism maintains its ideological dominance, not primarily through hermeneutical arguments, but through constant recourse to the cultural argument. The relentless ridicule and rejection of anything categorized as "feminist" imposes ideological blinders on people`s minds, ensuring that their thinking stays in lockstep with that of the traditionalist priesthood.[xiv]

A false dilemma lies behind much of the orthodoxy`s caricatures and dismissive ridicule. Many traditionalists and Darwinists hold doggedly to their position because they perceive the only alternative to be, respectively, radical feminism and the breakdown of the family, or an irrational, legalistic, biblical literalism.

Defenders of the orthodoxy frequently assume their opponents have a radicalized, insidious agenda that will stop at nothing short of total, fanatical takeover. Those egalitarians and creationists who present careful, moderate, nuanced views simply have not revealed the full extent of their ideology. There really isn`t, nor can there be, a biblical feminist or a rational creationist.[xv]

Although traditionalists and Darwinists claim to be completely certain that their view is the only reasonable option, many persist in systematically freezing out dissent, frequently refusing even to understand the rival view before high-handedly dismissing it. Because the guardians of the orthodoxy are also the gatekeepers of public discourse, they find it easy to deal with a challenge to their ideological dominance by denying dissenters a public voice, often ignoring the existence of alternative theories entirely.[xvi] Yet if the orthodox view really is the plain, obvious fact of the matter, it seems the orthodoxy`s priesthood would seek to establish this through rational argumentation rather than through repeated recourse to the rhetoric of desperation (insult, ridicule, caricature, the silent treatment, and so forth).

Obscuring the Issues

The semantic strategies employed in public debate effectively divert people`s attention from the dominant ideology`s core affirmations, undefined definitions, and hidden assumptions. The emphasis on the genetic changes that normally occur in the history of life obscures a foundational premise of Darwinian orthodoxy, namely, that no supernatural God need be postulated in order to account for the existence of natural life in all its complexity.[xvii] The emphasis on the simple fact of gender differences obscures the unstated traditionalist assumption that gender differences include status differences. (From this assumption traditionalists go on to assert that anyone who disputes women`s subordinate status is simply refusing to recognize the differences between men and women.) Masked by the orthodoxy`s public persona, the offense of its fundamental premises goes unnoticed in the heat of a debate that is essentially controlled by the orthodoxy`s priesthood.

One has but to nose around a bit behind the PR picture of Darwinism to realize that the evidence for macroevolution is not at all compelling unless one begins with the presupposition of philosophical naturalism–the belief that nature (matter plus energy) is all there is, and that all phenomena can and must be explained in these terms. As Johnson points out, that which "is presented to the public as scientific knowledge about evolutionary mechanisms is mostly philosophical speculation and is not even consistent with the evidence once the naturalistic spectacles are removed."[xviii] The "truth" of Darwinian evolution depends on naturalism being true, and this is what the argument is really about. Darwinists are not always willing to admit this, however.

Similarly, the biblical evidence for a God-ordained hierarchy of female subordination to male spiritual authority is not compelling unless the Bible is viewed through the spectacles of traditional gender stereotypes. The idea of universal male authority is implausible apart from the premise that there are some things that women are just not spiritually, emotionally, and intellectually fit to do. This is what the argument is really about, but no one wants to admit it.[xix]

Despite the certainty with which the orthodoxy is set before the public, its claims are not supported adequately, or entirely, by the evidence. "As a general theory of biological creation," Johnson observes, "Darwinism is not empirical at all. Rather, it is a necessary implication of a philosophical doctrine called scientific naturalism."[xx] In other words, scientists are compelled to be Darwinists, not by the empirical evidence for the theory, but by the philosophical necessity of the theory. "There can be argument about the details, but if God was not in the picture something very much like Darwinism simply has to be true, regardless of the evidence."[xxi]

Likewise with traditionalism. There can be argument about the details (e.g., exactly where the line should be drawn between "general" and "male only" ministries), but if women are not designed for the most important roles of spiritual leadership, and if it is fundamentally unfitting for women to enjoy the same rights, opportunities, and spiritual privileges as men, then the Bible must set forth a universal principle of some sort that mandates and legitimates such a state of affairs between the sexes, regardless of how spotty, ambiguous, and fraught with contradiction the biblical evidence for this may be.[xxii]

In the end, the evidence exists to serve the assumptions of the orthodoxy`s priesthood, and these assumptions are fundamentally metaphysical, that is, they pertain to the nature of things, whether of male and female, or of ultimate reality. The refusal to "come clean" concerning foundational issues sidetracks and obfuscates public discussion of these controversial topics. As Johnson powerfully puts it, "Addressing the metaphysical questions honestly will not heat up the culture wars, but rather tend to make them a part of the normal political and intellectual debate that characterizes a free and pluralistic society. What infuriates people is not disagreement but the subtext of contempt that necessarily accompanies the pronouncements of a ruling intellectual establishment whose power is based on a secret it is unwilling to disclose."[xxiii]

Camouflaging the Contradictions

The rhetoric of the orthodoxy also misleads when it implies that there is no real conflict between the orthodoxy and its opposition. Some proponents of Darwinism have been attempting to palliate troubled theists by saying that evolution is not incompatible with religious faith, but only with a Genesis literalism. Evolutionary biology does not rule out, but rather (when properly understood) points to the existence of a wise Creator. The orthodox Darwinian position, however, is that the theory of evolution renders the idea of God unnecessary.[xxiv]

Similarly, traditionalists have recently taken to insisting that when their position is properly understood, it provides for and honors women`s essential equality with men. The feminists, therefore, are fussing over a fallacy. However, the truly traditional rationale for gender hierarchy has always been the logically coherent one, namely, that woman`s inferior status points to and follows from her inferior nature.

The differences between creationism and Darwinism, and between gender equality and gender hierarchy, are irreconcilable.[xxv] To affirm the one is to deny the other. Nonetheless, Darwinists and traditionalists who want to defer dissent–or who feel threatened by dissenters` arguments–will often deny the fundamental issues that are in conflict, and attempt to play both ends against the middle. The result of such evasive action is internal incoherence, which is cheerfully disregarded for the sake of maintaining ideological dominance.

The keepers of the orthodoxy routinely disguise conflicts and deflect criticisms by positing a disjunct between contradictory concepts. Naturalistic scientists separate Darwinism (which is "science") from creationism (which is "religion"), and claim that science has to do with objective knowledge and religion with subjective beliefs. Traditionalists declare a woman`s ostensibly equal "being" unrelated to her clearly inferior "function."

These conceptual disjuncts serve to deliver their respective ideologies from cultural "hot water." In fact, they are invoked so frequently for this purpose, they almost sound like mantras. The traditionalist mantra is that the prescribed female subordination to male authority has nothing to do with a woman`s "being" but only her "function." Women are not inferior to men in essence, but only in role or function. The Darwinist mantra is that the question of life`s origin has nothing to do with religion, but only science; the issue pertains to facts and knowledge, not values or beliefs.

The repeated intoning of these mantras keeps objections at bay, and forestalls open discussion about foundational assumptions. The question of women`s inferiority cannot be discussed, because it is denied. The issue of philosophical naturalism cannot be discussed, because the presence of any metaphysical or religious beliefs within the context of science has been ruled out by definition.[xxvi] There is no contradiction between women`s equality and women`s subordination, because the two are deemed unrelated. There is no contradiction between creationism and Darwinism, because the two are deemed unrelated.

Thus, traditionalists are delivered from the criticism that gender hierarchy denies the equality of women, and Darwinists are delivered from the criticism that the theory of evolution offends and contradicts the religious faith of many people. Asserting a disjunct between two fundamentally related concepts proves to be a useful device for putting over an ideology that has at its core a profound contradiction between those two concepts.

Conceptual Cover-Ups

In addition to the semantic camouflaging of objections and contradictions, various theoretical constructs are devised by the orthodoxy`s priesthood in order to finesse conceptual difficulties within the ideology. Both traditionalism and Darwinism require that certain assumptions and expectations be imported from outside the available evidence (whether biblical or scientific), in order to fill in the gaps and shore up the weak links in the system. To derive the doctrine of a universal hierarchy of male spiritual authority, the actual biblical data must be augmented with suppositions, inferences, and anachronisms.[xxvii] Similarly, one must augment the actual fossil record with assorted theories and speculations in order to derive from it a completely naturalistic account of life`s origin and development.[xxviii]

In each view, the system of thought is held together at its sundry weak links by cobbled-together constructs. The whole house would fall down without these strategic but precarious postulations. Darwinists rely on such notions as emergent properties, catastrophism, the blind watchmaker thesis, and a disjunct between science and religion.[xxix] Traditionalists rely on a questionable interpretation of "head" in the NT as necessarily a metaphor for spiritual leader, an assumption that submission (when required of women to men) means unilateral obedience to spiritual authority, a carefully (and circuitously) constructed hierarchy of spiritual authority, various euphemisms and rhetorical smoke screens, and, of course, a disjunct between woman`s function and being.[xxx]

Two of the constructs mentioned here merit a closer look, namely, the Darwinian notion of emergence and the traditionalist disjunct between being and function. Johnson explains how some Darwinists manage to incorporate into their thought the theoretical benefits of the concept of the mind as an immaterial entity (rather than as merely a product of natural forces in a material universe), yet without actually asserting the existence of immaterial, supernatural reality (which would be prescientific, religious nonsense).

These contortions are necessary because, if the mind itself is nothing but a material product of the natural processes of biological evolution, then all "knowledge" produced by the mind is ultimately reducible to genes and brain chemicals. This, then, depreciates those academic disciplines that study things other than DNA or neuroscience; yet the scholars in these disciplines nonetheless feel the need to remain committed to naturalism.[xxxi] Moreover, such materialist reductionism renders all scientific theorizing inadequate and unreliable. If the mind, and the objects and ideas it studies, are all elements that have evolved within a closed system operated by natural laws, then the mind–like the rest of the natural world–is merely a product of a mindless system, a pawn of random forces. How can it assess and judge the system reliably? As Johnson observes, "The story of the great scientific mind that discovers absolute truth is satisfying only so long as we accept the mind itself as a given. Once we try to explain the mind as a product of its own discoveries, we are in a hall of mirrors with no exit."[xxxii]

Darwinists who do not wish to succumb to the consequences of materialist reductionism must, Johnson explains, "fight it by setting up a barrier to reductionism that is sufficiently impermeable to provide the advantages of dualism while being sufficiently flexible to avoid serious metaphysical trouble. The code word for this `now you see it, now you don`t` barrier is emergence, a term that refers to the tendency of surprising new properties to emerge when substances are combined."[xxxiii] Thus, consciousness is neatly defined as an emergent property of brain chemistry. It is a "something" distinct from brain chemistry, yet it is nothing but brain chemistry. The mind–like everything else in a naturalistic universe–is a product of blind evolutionary forces. Yet, the mind is still something more, somehow, than the sum of its material parts, and we can proceed on the basis of the assumption that it is a more or less reliable organ of knowledge.

Similarly, advocates of gender hierarchy must find a way to argue that the female nature is suited for inferior status, yet is not inferior. Unless women can be said to possess essential qualities that equip them for roles of subordinate domesticity and put them in need of the spiritual governance of men, the entire edifice of traditionalist dogma becomes an untenable and arbitrary enterprise. Nonetheless, traditionalists today–unlike their truly traditional predecessors–are committed to repudiating the notion that women are inferior to men. So women must be portrayed as innately and uniquely fitted for a place of permanent subordination to men, yet without being inferior to men.

As with naturalistic scientists, the dilemma is resolved through the manipulation of language. The vocabulary of the traditionalist argument is carefully designed to protect its proponents from charges of misogyny, while also providing some sort of metaphysical justification for a universalized hierarchy of male authority. To adapt Johnson, the linguistic barrier that is devised for this purpose is sufficiently impermeable to justify the gender roles that follow from the traditional, prescientific belief in women`s inferiority, while being sufficiently flexible to avoid serious metaphysical trouble. The "code words" for this barrier include "femininity" (defined as woman`s natural aptitude for supporting and submitting to male leadership), "masculinity" (defined as man`s inherent sense of leadership, especially of women), "difference" (to refer to the feminine role of inferior status), "responsibility" (to refer to the masculine role of superior status), "servanthood" (to redescribe male authority), and, finally, "equal in being, unequal in function" (to reconcile woman`s unequal status and opportunities with her alleged equality).[xxxiv] Thus, an ideology that makes no sense without the premise of women`s inferiority manages to incorporate the theoretical benefits of this premise, all the while officially denying it.

In each case, a concept that the orthodoxy`s priesthood is determined to deny (whether belief in the supernatural or in women`s inferiority) is smuggled back into the ideology when it becomes necessary in order to provide meaning and coherence.

Concluding Thoughts

Of Darwinists and traditionalists, there are two kinds: the simplistic and the sophisticated.[xxxv] The simplistic (whether the lemmings or the leaders) accept uncritically the official stereotype, the PR version of the orthodoxy (i.e., natural variations occur, gender differences exist), and believe that this settles the case and leaves no room for debate. The sophisticated are aware of the loopholes and lacunae in their position and attempt to finesse them with complex arguments, arcane data, authoritative assertions, and euphemistic redescriptions. Like the simplistic, however, the sophisticated often evince no willingness to give serious consideration to rival views, but claim absolute certainty that their own position is correct, and profess astonishment that their opponents should be so deluded.

This state of affairs is not likely to change very much, given the cultural (and ecclesiastical) influence and opportunities enjoyed by representatives of the orthodoxy, their ready access to the arenas of public debate, and the string of semantic strategies that are routinely employed "to bamboozle, intimidate, and coax the public into accepting the view that furthers the interests of the priesthood."[xxxvi]

Contemplating the contours of public discourse in these two controversies has persuaded me that postmodernists are correct when they say that the politics of power is largely the politics of language games in the service of ideological dominance. As postmodernist philosopher Richard Rorty observes, "anything can be made to look good or bad by being redescribed."[xxxvii] This, of course, doesn`t make a thing good or bad; but it does make it appear so in the eyes of an easily bamboozled public.

Endnotes

——————————————————————————–

[i] Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, has authored several books critiquing Darwinism, including Darwin on Trial (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991; revised 1993).

[ii] Traditionalists believe that the Bible teaches a universal principle of female subordination to male authority. Biblical egalitarians disagree, maintaining that mutual submission and equal opportunity for ministry should characterize the relationship of all believers, regardless of race, class, or gender.

[iii] Two disclaimers before I proceed: 1) There are traditionalists (as, I expect, there are Darwinists) who are more interested in truth and reason than in politics, and therefore do not resort to these semantic strategies in promoting their beliefs. These are not the people of whom I speak in this article, because they are not the ones actively politicking and crusading for their ideology, thereby setting the tone and the terms of the public debate. 2) The comparison between Phillip Johnson`s and my insights on the evolution and gender debates (respectively) are not intended to reflect in any way on Johnson`s own view of the gender issue.

[iv] See Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997), chapters 1, 3 and 4.

[v] Phillip E. Johnson, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law, & Education (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 73-74.

[vi] Ibid., 200.

[vii] See ibid., 80-82; and Groothuis, 234-35.

[viii] Johnson, 73.

[ix] See ibid., 96, with respect to the field of science.

[x] See ibid., 182.

[xi] Ibid., 33.

[xii] Ibid., 21.

[xiii] Ibid., 48.

[xiv] For instance, the ferocity of the public outcry in the spring of 1997 that shut down years of work by translators to update the New International Version of the Bible was not a result of compelling arguments related to actual translational issues, but of sensational journalistic rhetoric that cleverly categorized the proposed revised version as a "unisex," "feminist" product of modern cultural ideology. The irony is that these rhetorical and political strategies that many traditionalists find so useful do not represent the "traditional" way of marketing ideas, but the postmodern way of politicizing ideas and rejecting rational discourse–strategies grounded in contemporary cultural values that contradict biblical and ethical principles of truth, justice, charity, and rationality.

[xv] On the orthodoxy`s fear of the slippery slope, see Johnson, 47, 183; and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Women Caught in the Conflict: The Culture War Between Traditionalism and Feminism (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Books, 1994; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Pub., 1997), chapters 8 and 11.

[xvi] I have been surprised to discover how many, many evangelicals –including students at theological seminaries–have never even heard the biblical case for gender equality.

[xvii] Johnson, 14-16, 196.

[xviii] Ibid., 12; see also 16, 205-206..

[xix] See Groothuis, Good News for Women, chapters 2-4.

[xx] Phillip E. Johnson, "What Is Darwinism?" Christian Research Journal, Spring 1997, 26.

[xxi] Ibid., 22.

[xxii] The ambiguities and contradictions inherent to the biblical case for gender hierarchy are explored in Good News for Women.

[xxiii] Johnson, Reason, 191-192.

[xxiv] See ibid., 73-75.

[xxv] See ibid., 109, 205-218, with respect to naturalism vs. theism.

[xxvi] See ibid., 35, where religion is broadly defined as "a way of thinking about ultimate questions." Johnson makes the case that naturalism is "the established religious philosophy of America."

[xxvii] See Groothuis, Good News, chapters 5-9. A typical anachronism is the reading of NT texts as though they were written directly to 20th-century readers.

[xxviii] Johnson, Reason, 82-83.

[xxix] See ibid., 126-128, 76-86, 21, 45.

[xxx] See Groothuis, Good News, chapters 2, 3, 6 and 8.

[xxxi] See Johnson, Reason, 126.

[xxxii] Ibid., 62.

[xxxiii] Ibid., 127.

[xxxiv] See Groothuis, Good News, chapters 2-3.

[xxxv] See Johnson, Reason, 83.

[xxxvi] From a lecture on Darwinism by Phillip Johnson. Recent developments related to the work of molecular biologist Michael Behe seem to have penetrated the Darwinist line of defense to some extent. Yet Darwinists remain unpersuaded and are busily devising rhetorical strategies (they have no compelling scientific arguments) for responding to Behe`s challenge. (See Tom Woodward, "Meeting Darwin`s Wager," Christianity Today, 28 April 1997, 15-21.)

[xxxvii] Richard Rorty, "Ironists and Metaphysicians," in The Truth About the Truth: De-Confusing and Re-Constructing the Postmodern World, ed. Walter Truett Anderson (New York: G.P. Putnam`s Sons, 1995), 101.

Share on Facebook

Tweet

Follow us