Theistic realism is a philosophical justification for intelligent design proposed by Phillip E. Johnson in his book, Reason in the Balance. According to Johnson, true knowledge begins with the acknowledgment of God as creator of the universe, the unifying characteristic of which is that it was created by God. Theistic realism relies on a God that is real, personal, and acting in the world through mechanistic creationism.

In 1987 Johnson became convinced that creationists had lost in Edwards v. Aguillard because in his opinion the methodological naturalism used by the scientific community in defining science does not include supernatural processes, and therefore unfairly excluded creationism. He concluded that creationists must therefore redefine science to restore the supernatural, and developed the Wedge Strategy.^[1] The intelligent design movement was begun by the authors and publishers of Of Pandas and People in 1989,^[2] and Johnson later became its de-facto leader.^[1]

Theistic realism was developed by Johnson as a counter to naturalism. To Johnson, nature cannot be understood without acknowledging God as its creator. He and his supporters believe that neither life nor the universe can be fully explained using naturalistic terms.

Scriptural basis

Johnson bases his argument for theistic realism on several verses in both the Old Testament and New Testament of the Bible, particularly Proverbs 1:7, John 1:1-3, and Romans 1:20-23.

Theistic realism and methodological naturalism

Johnson believes that mainstream science is wrong because he considers it to be dominated by evolutionary philosophy. He argues against rejection of intelligent design in the scientific community, stating that, "[We] collapse into intellectual futility and confusion when we discard the Creator as a remnant of prescientific superstition."

Theistic realism and theistic naturalism

Johnson asserts that theistic evolution, progressive creationism, and other philosophies that try to integrate science and religion are misguided attempts by people of faith to accommodate academia by "accepting not just the particular conclusions that scientists have reached but also the naturalistic methodology that generated those conclusions." He criticizes those who accept the understanding of the material world that is presented by methodological naturalism yet still express faith that God exists. Their reasoning draws a dichotomy between faith and science that Johnson considers to be irrational. On the contrary, Johnson argues, theism can only be rational when one allows for the possibility of God personally acting in history and nature.

Johnson sees the creation biology that is linked to theistic realism as a serious challenge to philosophical and theistic naturalism:

"In view of the cultural importance of the naturalistic worldview... and its status as virtually the official philosophy of government and education, there is a need for informed outsiders to point out that claims are often made in the name of science that go far beyond the available evidence. The public needs to learn to discount those claims, and the scientists themselves need to learn how profoundly their interpretations of the evidence are influenced by their metaphysical preconceptions. If the resulting embarrassment spurs scientists on to greater achievements, leading to a smashing vindication of their basic viewpoint, then so be it."

Theistic realism and scientific philosophy

Theistic realism, as Johnson describes it, is an attempt to redefine science outside of naturalistic philosophy. The fundamental philosophy of science eschews any appeal to supernatural causes or events. Therefore, adding the theistic assumption as a prerequisite for doing science is fundamentally at odds with the very definition of science.

There is nothing in science or in methodological naturalism that requires the rejection of a creator; on the contrary, science makes no attempt to prove or disprove the existence of a deity. By definition, there is no experiment that can conclusively answer that question, and Johnson agrees with this limitation of science. His philosophy strictly prohibits using the scientific method to prove or disprove the existence of God. Johnson believes that mathematics and science cannot be done on their own terms and can only be fully realized in the context of his conception of theism. The natural consequence of this is that Johnson rejects any universal statement about the primacy of natural laws or mathematical proof, since he believes that all such things can be violated by God. This is diametrically opposed to the empirical assumptions of science and mathematics. Holding that the grandeur of the universe leads inevitably to the existence of a deity is a statement of faith, and as such is not an empirical observation.

Scientific philosophy does not consider the existence or absence of a creator to be relevant to the ability to do scientific research. In contrast, theistic realism claims that any scientific endeavor that does not explicitly accept a creator as an a priori premise is doomed to failure. If the existence of a creator were required, one might expect that theistic scientists would be more successful than atheistic scientists, but this does not appear to be the case. Depending on one's point of view, either this fact falsifies the claims of theistic realism (because current scientific models are successful at predicting natural phenomena without explicitly accepting the existence of a creator) or its claims may be considered unfalsifiable (since the theistic realist can assume that science has simply not progressed far enough to uncover its own errors). The idea that theistic claims are unfalsifiable for this reason is often summed up in the phrase "God of the gaps".

Further those who accept the claims of Theistic realism and assume that god exists seek to specify which god or gods are meant. The different religions and the different sects within religions make incompatible claims. Deciding which to believe adds arbitrary assumptions and violates Occam's razor. The theory introduces unnecessary complications into scientific endeavour. Johnson makes the unprovable assumption that the Old and New Testaments are true but other alleged sacred texts are false. As a Born again Christian he assumes that Protestantism is true but other branches of Christianity are false. This cannot be reconciled with Occam's razor.

References

1. ↑ ^{a b} Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. (pdf) A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Barbara Forrest. May, 2007, Retrieved 2007-06-12.
2. ↑ Introduction: Of Pandas and People, the foundational work of the 'Intelligent Design' movement by Nick Matzke 2004, Retrieved 2007-06-12.