Phillip E. Johnson (June 18, 1940 – November 2, 2019)[1] was an American legal scholar who was the Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley.
[17] Johnson recounted that while on a sabbatical in England he sought, through prayer, inspiration for what he should do with the rest of his life, and then received an epiphany after he read Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker (1986) and Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985).
He has appeared on various programs such as PBS's Firing Line[25] and a Nova episode, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.
[31][32] Johnson was known as one of the founders of the intelligent design movement, principal architect of the wedge strategy, and the author of the Santorum Amendment.
Eugenie Scott wrote that Darwin on Trial "teaches little that is accurate about either the nature of science, or the topic of evolution.
"[35] Working through the Center for Science and Culture, Johnson wrote the early draft language of the Santorum Amendment, which encouraged a "Teach the Controversy" approach to evolution in public school education.
[8][9][10][39][40][41][42][excessive citations] In the book Darwin on Trial, 1991, Johnson disputed the tenets of evolution and promoted Intelligent design.
The conference brought together as speakers some key Wedge figures, particularly Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and myself.
'[49]Johnson is one of the authors of the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document and its "Teach the Controversy" campaign, which attempts to cast doubt on the validity of the theory of evolution, its acceptance within the scientific community, and reduce its role in public school science curricula while promoting intelligent design.
"[citation needed] In his 1997 book Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds Johnson summed up the underlying philosophy of his advocacy for intelligent design and against methodological and philosophical naturalism: 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.
[56][57] In fact-checking Johnson's books Darwin on Trial and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, Brian Spitzer, an associate professor of biology at the University of Redlands, argued that almost every scientific source Johnson cited had been misused or distorted, from simple misinterpretations and innuendos to outright fabrications.
"[58] In a later interview she said she faced a campaign to get her fired after she expressed her view that intelligent design was not only poor theology, but "so stupid, I don't want to give them my time."
Murphy, who accepts the validity of evolution, said that Johnson called a trustee in an attempt to get her fired and stated "His tactic has always been to fight dirty when anyone attacks his ideas."
"[59] Since Johnson is considered by those both inside and outside the movement to be the father and architect of the intelligent design movement and its strategies,[60] his statements are often used to validate the criticisms leveled by those who allege that the Discovery Institute and its allied organizations are merely stripping the obvious religious content from their anti-evolution assertions as a means of avoiding the legal restrictions of the Establishment Clause, a view reinforced by the December 2005 ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial which found that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.
Popular disagreement with evolutionary theory should not be considered as a reason for challenging it as a scientifically valid subject to be taught, they contend.
[citation needed] Critics of Johnson point to his central role in the Discovery Institute's carefully orchestrated campaign known as the wedge strategy.
[61] According to Johnson, "The movement we now call the wedge made its public debut at a conference of scientists and philosophers held at Southern Methodist University in March 1992.
[72] In the Washington University Law Review, Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey faulted Johnson, Wells and others for denying the HIV/AIDS connection and promoting denialism via a petition designed to garner publicity but which did not have any scientific support.