Rating: 
Summary: Neo-Darwinism at the Bar of Reason
Review: Phillip Johnson has taken Darwinian evolution to court and the verdict rendered is guilty. He argues incisively that Darwinism cannot be verified by the empirical evidence. Therefore the very foundation of Darwinism is not rooted in science but a philosophy of naturalism. It is this worldview of naturalism, which colors all the evidence and provides the shaky foundation for Darwinian science. Darwinists have a healthy corner on the market of science by being the very ones who define science in their favor. They argue that the most basic characteristic of science is reliance upon naturalistic explanations. Any appeal to the supernatural or transcendent by definition is excluded. Any form of theistic creationism is therefore excluded. Such a theory of theistic creation is viewed by scientists as non-science and by many as non-sense. The deck has been clearly stacked against theism. Johnson's main task in Darwin on Trial is to show that the conflict is not between science and non-science, but between two competing worldviews. There is naturalism, which by definition excludes all forms of the divine, and there is the worldview of theism that argues for a God who created all things. It is this worldview clash, which is at the heart of the evolution debate. Johnson surveys the scientific evidence offered for evolution and finds it wanting. He deals with natural selection, mutation theory, and the fossil record, the vertebrate sequence, molecular evidence and prebiological evolution. He then examines the philosophical underpinnings of evolutionary theory and argues that evolution as fact is hinged upon philosophy and not science. It is a philosophical theory, which uses science only for minimal confirmation. The philosophical worldview of evolution colors all the empirical "confirming" evidence, which is used to verify the "truth" of Darwinism. The importance of Darwin on Trial is to show that the debate over evolution is a worldview clash. The empirical evidence still needs to be examined and debated, but no longer can either side claim absolute objectivity in interpreting the evidence. Interpretation is filtered through one's worldview and all scientists are required to acknowledge their worldview whether it is naturalistic or theistic. Darwin on Trial is accessible for both scientists and non-scientists. It is an enjoyable read as Johnson is astute in pointing out the many fallacies of Darwinian thought. On more than one occasion you are left in shock that a highly educated scientist such as Gould or Dawkins would make such logically fallacious statements. Johnson also provides a response to his critics as an appendix in the second edition. He responds to Stephen Jay Gould, Michael Ruse and many others who have attempted to debunk his book. If you are new to the debate or just want to freshen up this is a great place to start. The only major criticism I have is that there are no footnotes (only research notes in the back of the book). The documentation is there but a bit hard to follow at times. Other than this small criticism Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial steers a helpful course in the murky waters of evolutionary science.
Rating: 
Summary: Darwinism's Unstated Philosophical Presupposition
Review: In 1991, "Darwin on Trial" staked out new ground against Darwinism. Today some critics accuse it of outdated science. Still, every scientific claim awaits being outdated from its inception. Endless scientific points and counterpoints are the predictable future once the essential unfalsifiability of both young-Earth scientific creationism and Darwinism were noticed. Still, critics attacking Professor Johnson's science miss or ignore his central philosophical achievement: the radical unmasking of Darwinism's Achilles heel, atheistic naturalism. Science rightly embraces methodological naturalism. That is, observable natural phenomena demand natural explanations. Failure to attempt to propose theories and causes that remain within the boundaries of the natural universe abandons the very essence of physical science. Still, to employ an absolute presumption that only natural causes can possibly explain all phenomena embraces, not methodological, but metaphysical naturalism. In the case of Darwinism, an a priori commitment to atheistic materialism precludes all possibility of supernatural intervention in the cosmos. This constitutes philosophy, not science. Once committed to this philosophical posture, all changes in nature must flow from natural causes. If natural causes alone can account for the appearance of all new species, then naturalistic evolution becomes necessary. No matter the objection raised against evolution, the naturalistic presumption demands a naturalistic explanation. "Good science" demands debunking of all opposing evidence, and insistence that complete evolutionary explanations have already been given - or are on the way shortly. Hence, the uproar against Johnson for daring to point out this unstated philosophical presumption in Darwinism's smug claims, which masquerade in the guise of "pure natural science." In "Darwin on Trial," Johnson exposes the fallacy and implications of metaphysical naturalism, thereby revealing Darwinism's logical weaknesses with devastating force. The book best speaks for itself, provided we realize that Darwinians will always seek to regain lost ground by challenging the recency of Johnson's scientific data and examples. Essentially, they fail to escape Johnson's relentless philosophical and logical attack upon their exaggerated claims of certitude. Johnson tells us that he is "...not concerned in this book with addressing any conflicts between the Biblical accounts and the scientific evidence." (1991 hardbound edition, p. 14) Still, Darwinism has undermined Biblical belief, especially the Genesis account of Adam and Eve's origin. In my book, "Origin of the Human Species" (Sapientia Press: 2003), I demonstrate the compatibility of sound natural science with authentic Scriptural interpretation, including the historicity of Adam and Eve - and without recourse to young-Earth creationism. I cite "Darwin on Trial" to support my own exploration of evolution science's epistemological limitations, while showing that even should human origins intertwine with biological evolution in some mysterious manner, Scripture's literal historical sense need not be violated. In "Darwin on Trial," Phillip Johnson has done an excellent job of revealing Darwinism's philosophically objectionable foundations as well as pointing to empirical data that appear to oppose Darwinian theory. "Darwin on Trial" should be a cornerstone of every informed debate about evolution.
Rating:
Summary: Evolution = Ptolemaic Astronomy
Review: Thoroughly destroys the house of cards that is evolution. If humanity wasn't so tragically stupid, it would be funny.
Rating:
Summary: Two Thumbs Up!
Review: Over the past several years I have read a number of books both for and against the theory of evolution. One of these books was in fact Darwin's original thesis, "The Origin of Species." Some of the others have been books that try to defeat Darwin by presenting a myriad of counter evidence which the author believes is proof that Darwin's theory is false. However, they usually end up being just as guilty as Darwin in making untested assumptions and sweeping generalizations. The end result is that these books aren't very convincing unless you read them having a completely bias view to begin with. Phillip Johnson's book is entirely different. He makes the argument that simply showing tidbits of evidence which might be compatible with an evolving earth isn't the same as proving the fundamental tenants of the theory. Providing these tidbits of information is exactly what scientific naturalists have been doing all along. His purpose isn't to prove creationism to be true, but rather to show how flawed the "evidence" for evolution really is. Whatever your personal beliefs may be, you will view the lack of evidence for evolution in a different light after you read "Darwin on Trial." I give Johnson two thumbs up!
Rating:
Summary: One of Johnson's best!
Review: I read Johnson's book Defeating Darwinism about 3 years ago, and was not impressed with his arguments against evolution in that book. Yet, after reading this book I have become a fan of Johnson's critiques of Darwinian theory. As a law student myself, I have come to appreciate Johnson's literary and argumentative techniques because he writes from the perspective not of a scientist, but as a lawyer examining the evidence to see which case is the strongest. Some criticize Johnson for not being a scientist, and in fact that was the criticism I levied against him three years ago, but as a lawyer Johnson is able to do something no scientist can do; Namely, examine the facts as they are and root out assumptions that individuals hold which help them interpret the facts in a certain way. This is exactly what Johnson does in this book as he examines the evidence for and against Darwinian evolution. Johnson correctly notes that a vast majority of the scientific establishment have embraced the philosophical system of materialistic atheism as the logical partner of Darwinian theory. Therefore, there is no purpose to the universe's existence or any purpose for mankind's existence but everything is the result of law and chance. This type of worldview is antithetical to a religious worldview and therefore religion and science often do clash because these two philosophical systems are at odds with each other. In addition, Johnson notes that the theory of evolution is slowly collapsing under the weight of new scientific discoveries. Sure, in Darwin's day the lack of fossil of evidence wasn't perceived as a problem because people believed the fossils were yet undiscovered, but the fossil discoveries of the last 150 years have only reinforced the fact the Darwinian evolution contradicts the fossil evidence. Yes, in Darwin's day the cell was believed to be a simple structure consisiting mainly of water and a nucleus, but now molecular biology has discovered that the cell is extremely complex, more complex than any man made machine, and believing such a structure could be created by random, pointless processes is absurd. These are just a few of the ideas brought forth in this book and although Johnson doesn't do much to damage the scientific validity of evolution he servely damages the philosophical foundations of evolution and that is damage enough.
Rating: 
Summary: Very Interesting
Review: This book seemed to me to be an excellent example of what is at the heart of the Creation-Evolution debate.
Unfortunately, Mr. Johnson embodies all that is wrong with it. A professor of law, Phillip Johnson is less qualified to write this book than many of his readers. He takes a very lawyer-esque approach to the whole debate, as evidenced by his title. Everyone who is fed up with lawyers getting criminals off with fancy arguments that bend opponents's words will recognize that a fundamental problem with a lawyer's approach to Truth is that it is motivated by winning, rather than finding out what happened. For readers who are interested in basic questions like, 'Did God create the world, and how?' this book will be disappointing, since it deals almost exclusively with attacking the words of secular scientists. For belligerent types who want to scorn evolutionists, this is the book for you; it will resonate in your very soul. I would like to encourage anyone who reads this book to write down the list of unfair things that 'evolutionists do to win arguments' that Johnson has in one of his first chapters... things like personal attacks, mockery etc. And then see how many times throughout the rest of the book he himself resorts to these same tactics. If you can find two consecutive pages without one of these 'unfair tactics' you are a more careful reader than I am. The thing terrible thing is, Phillip Johnson's stated motivation is his faith, his relationship with Jesus Christ. But Christ told his followers (He told them many things, but one of them was:) 'by this, all men will know you are my disciples: if you love one another.' There isn't much in the way of love in Phillip Johnson's book. Lots of scorn, derision, condesencion and mockery, but not much love.
Granted, nobody should be willing to compromise integrity by failing to take a hard line with the Truth, but it would be great if Phillip Johnson could be less smarmy about it.
Rating:
Summary: Sparkling appeal to reason
Review: I was astonished by Johnson's fine book when it first appeared. Unsurprisingly, and as catalogued in these reviews, the typical response of evolutionists is to resort to various logical fallacies--a favorite being name-calling. It appears that very few of Johnson's critics have actually read his book. One brief story: After reading Darwin on Trial when it was first released, I asked a very good (macro-evolutionist) friend of mine in Berkeley about his rebuttal to Johnson's arguments. To my surprise, his response was, shall we say, inadequate. Yet, my friend's passion for macro-evolution was undiminished. Graciously, Johnson (with whom I spoke once previously on the telephone) agreed to meet in his (Johnson's Berkeley campus office) for an informal discussion/debate about the subject of Darwin on Trial. Initially, my friend went along with the idea, but shortly before the scheduled meeting he backed out without explanation. I never pressed him; after all he was my friend.
Rating: 
Summary: Read this if you wish to get dumber.
Review: I read this book when it came out, while I was a college student majoring in Genetics. At the time, the book seemed to really find objective cracks in evolutionary theory. I particulary remember and even enjoyed the clear and objective writing style in this book, and I think the author is approaching the subject from a unique angle (as a lawyer). However, the book falls short on factual information, and is now quite antiquated based on which how fast reasearch moves. Currently, I am getting my PhD in molecular evolution, the very subject of which is not discussed in this book, nor did it even exist when this book was written. Molecular evolution is basically never discussed by writers trying to "debunk" evoltionary theory, because they: 1) don't understand enough to write about it and 2) it is un-debunkable. For a relatively short summary on molecular evolution, read and understand this book: "From DNA to Diversity" by Carroll, Grenier, and Weatherbee. Once you have read that, come back and read "Darwin on Trial" and see if it makes any sense. One remaining question to think about now that you have read my review: Why is it that researchers can use fruit flies and roundworms to discover insights/cures to human diseases if all of life on this planet isn't directly related?
Rating:
Summary: Using Evolutionist's Own Words
Review: In this book, Phillip Johnson uses evolutionists' own words to show just how unsure of the theory of evolution they really are. And if evolutionists recognize the fatal flaws in their own theory, what of the rest of us? This is a stunning book, not because of its conclusions, but because of who draws them -- the very people who hold to the theory themselves. In their own words, if evolutionists could find another theory besides creation to explain the origin of life and its modification over the years, they'd abandon evolution in a millisecond. What is frightening is that it's only the people at the forefront of evolution who recognize its flaws. The way evolution is presented to the public is as if it's fact, and it's taught as fact, when the people who are in the position to know the most recognize publicly that it's built on sand. Anyone who believes that evolution is a widely accepted view in the scientific community needs to read this book.
Rating:
Summary: to get an acquital, all you need is reasonable doubt
Review: I read the book years ago when it first came out. I remember how unique and revolutionary it appeared. No one was saying anything like this. Well now, a decade later, lots of people are saying the same thing, and this book seems old and tired. It is not a science book, it is a lawyer's argument on evolution in the dock. All you need to get an acquital is a little bit of reasonable doubt. In this case you are trying to throw out evolutionary theory as the only possible scientific explanation of life's origins, and let something else in. What exactly he wants to allow is not the point of the book, nor is it exactly specified, although subsequent history of the author is clear, intelligent design. The book is at its worse when it tries to explain molecular evolutionary evidence and at its best in a chapter on the rules of science. Where Johnson is at his lawyerly best analyzing science and the metaphysical scientism, this chapter is worth a read. The rest of the book has been discredited since its publication and it worth reading only as an introduction to the history of ID, and to see how far the movement has come in 10 years. Johnson is a good writer, and the book justifiably upset the scientific world then, but it has adjusted and continues to resistent the bulk of his arguments.
| 
