Rating: 
Summary: HONEST AND STRAIGHTFORWARD
Review: Johnson's critique of Darwinianism is accurate and convincing. Those who read this book will either be surprised by the compelling data against Darwinianism, or they will be angered that their Darwinian position is not very strong. This debate can bring out extreme emotions, which cloud objectivity. Those who dismiss Johnson's arguments are clouded, and refuse to acknowledge clear evidence.
Rating:
Summary: Remarkably well-written and persuasively argued.
Review: "Darwin on Trial" is a MUST READ for anyone interested in the theory of evolution and its incredible impact on society. Johnson clearly argues against "macroevolution" or evolution of new species, classes, etc. from pre-existing ones. What strikes me about this book is Johnson's analytical mind, his emphasis on the illogical nature of some Darwinists, and the beautiful readability of his prose. Regardless of which side of the debate you find more appealing, Johnson definitely appraoches evolution in a way entirely different than other anti-evolutionists. Extremely interesting is his last chapter where he discusses the role of philosophy in science and how much it plays a role, and his summary of SJ Gould's criticisms of the book (which I found to be very few and largely irrelevant). Great Book!!! Makes me want to read his other stuff.
Rating: 
Summary: What one would expect from a misguided attack on evolution.
Review: This book is probably the best of the so called anti-evolution books. Of course this doesn't say much, because this work also includes all the usual distortions and so on.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant unbiased view of evolution!
Review: Johnson does a wonderful job of uncovering the flaws of evolutional theory. He does it mainly with the words of evolutionists themselves! I have seen evolutionists try to refute the data in this book, they can't!
Rating:
Summary: Slick and Superficial
Review: Phillip Johnson is a law professor at UC Berkeley and an evangelical Christian who has stated publicly that his conversion to Christianity was what motivated him to make a crusade out of trying to discredit the science of evolution. His arguments in this book are clever, and appealing to those who have no background in the natural sciences, but they are unsound and invalid, and anyone with sufficient training can see the gaping holes in them.Johnson is far more clever than most creationists, so he has the sense to disavow some of the wackier claims of the Duane Gish-Henry Morris crowd, like dinosaurs coexisting with humans or a universe that is only 6000 years old. He also comes up with a clever way to get around his complete lack of scientific training. He argues that since evolution cuts across many scientific disciplines, scientists, who tend to specialize in one discipline, are not the best equipped people to analyze evolution--a layman like himself can do better. Sound plausible? Imagine if we applied the same logic to law. I could argue that since constitutional law covers cases in a variety of areas of law, while lawyers tend to specialize in one area, the best qualified person to teach constitutional law is someone with no knowledge of the law. Such an argument is no weaker than the claim that a law professor with no training in science is the best person to critique evolution. Johnson's other arguments follow the same pattern--superficially plausible, but invalid once you take them apart. His central argument is that belief in evolution is not scientific--it is just as religious as creationism. He claims that since scientists rule out supernatural causes when they study natural phenomena, the scientists are in fact adhering to a religious belief in "naturalism." In fact, scientists confine themselves to natural explanations, not because they are arbitrarily ruling out the supernatural for "religious" reasons, but because supernatural explanations are inherently untestable and unfalsifiable, and scientists must confine themselves to claims and explanations that can be proven false. Imagine, once again, that we turned Johnson's reasoning around and applied it to law--suppose we allowed supernatural claims into courts of law. "Judge Ito, members of the jury, it is true that my client O.J.'s blood was found at the scene of the murder, but he was not responsible for the crimes, because he was posessed by a demon on that evening and had no control over his body. Since the devil did it, you must acquit." Johnson and his fellow conservatives (creationist beliefs are almost entirely confined to the right wing) would be outraged. While Johnson has disavowed any belief in the extreme views of the young earth crowd, it is astonishing how many of his arguments are right out of Gish and Morris. He claims that the fossil record does not support evolution (False. See any paleontology text or the talk.orgins FAQ). He claims that evolution is not falsifiable (False. For example, it would be falsified by findings of modern mammal fossils in PreCambrian rock formations). Finally, Johnson displays a disturbing intellectual dishonesty when presenting the arguments of the scientists he criticizes. For example, he characterizes Richard Dawkins' "the Blind Watchmaker," one of the best books on evolution for laymen, as "a sustained argument for atheism" which is only incidentally about science. Johnson supports his claim with one out of context quote. Anyone who has read Dawkins' book knows how badly Johnson distorts it, but Johnson's book is aimed at an audience that has not read Dawkins or other scientists, so few of his readers will realize how dishonest he is. I have rated the book at one star, meaning that I think there is no reason for a general audience to read the book. The only reason to read it would be to arm yourself against creationism by learning what its arguments are. Science educators and others who may find themselves on the frontlines fighting creationists might find it valuable for that reason only. Otherwise it is worthless.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding
Review: To me, this is the essential and only item needed for one interested in a critique of Darwinism. Phillip Johnson here cogently lays out, with unassailable logic (which plenty of people will nevertheless assail, apparently for no good reason according to the negative reviews below), the problems with the way evolution is portrayed by the scientific establishment today. He clearly shows how evolution by natural selection is consistently cited to explain more than it really can, not because of evidence in its favor, but because of its intellectual appeal and apparent explanatory power. But as Johnson demonstrates, a theory constantly restated as a series of self-fulfilling tautologies which seem to explain *every possible observed phenomenon* is not falsifiable, and therefore explains nothing. The many in our culture today who are effectively brainwashed by Darwinism will not be able to grasp this distinction, however, and will merely grumble about "creationism", unwilling to admit that certain questions about the origin and evolution of life are not answerable by Darwinism, or science at all as we know it. *Leaving room* for a possible supernatural explanation does mean that science supports it; it is merely acknowledging the important truth that not all of nature is intelligible by way of science. Johnson's tone throughout is at once candid, open, fair, and unproselytizing; while being honest about his own personal beliefs, the author clearly demonstrates in very rational terms why it is not unreasonable to question the relevance of Darwinism to the origins and evolution of life while also leaving the question of alternative explanations up to the reader.
Rating:
Summary: Distinguishes Between Empirical Science and Philosophy
Review: The title of this book is in response to Futuyma's book against Creationism called "Science on Trial." Science on Trial accuses Creationists with confusing religion with science. Johnson in his book accuses Naturalistic Evolutionists with confusing naturalistic/atheistic philosophy with science. Johnson points out, as does Moreland in his book "Christianity and the Nature of Science," that science is not a neutral, presuppositionless endeavor. Philosophy and/or religion partakes in interpreting the "facts." But interpretation and empirical facts can be separated. Micro-evolution is an empirical fact; macro-evolution is not. The idea that life comes from non-life, intelligence from non-intelligence, and man from monkeys (or an earlier common ancestor), is philosophy just as the idea that God created the universe out of nothing and set the causal limits on species is religious. Given the theistic worldview, and ignoring the question (and facts) of whether God actually did create anything using evolution, could God have done it? Yes. God can create a man out of a monkey just as he created a man, and all things, ultimately out of nothing. But what does the here-and-now evidence show? Only micro-evolution is true; the rest is conjecture based on philosophy or religion (including divine revelation!). Johnson points out the unwarranted leap that evolutionists make when they assume micro-evolution is proof of macro-evolution. A couple books by Norman Geisler that sufficiently refute naturalistic/atheistic philosophy are Christian Apologetics and Miracles and the Modern Mind. According to the theistic worldview, natural laws are not immutable because they are created out of nothing by God. Therefore, miracles are possible.
Rating: 
Summary: Logic is the Policeman of Science
Review: Pros - 1) Johnson recognizes that the paradigm adopted by any researcher stems from an underlying epistemology. For those scientists who never studied philosophy with their research methodology class in graduate school, this book should make you ask questions about why you do what you do after the parametric stats are over - why do I conclude what I do? 2) Logic is the policeman of science, it cannot tell you when you are right, but it certainly does tell you when you have made an irrational judgement in the name of inference. Johnson cogently argues, using information current for the book's time, that not only Darwin's original theory of descent with modification lacks sufficiently demonstrated rational causes to meet either the strict or lax definitions of science commonly applied by evolutionists themselves, even under the Neo-Darwinian synthesis. Cons - Johnson often makes broad statements about the state of biological inquiry into evolution without citing proper! ! references. Many of the logical arguments are reduced, not due to failures in reasoning, but by failure to cite the various articles (professional journals or not) that would make much of his argumentation sound and coherent in the philosophical sense. I would rate this book at four stars because 1) it provides an attempt to touch at the philosophy of science, not the periphery, 2) it recognizes bias is unavoidable, 3) it does not use a straw-man fallacy approach when sources are properly cited, 4) it allows you to plumb some of the philosophical depths of your own understanding of what science is, does, and the rules we use to accomplish our research ends. Rod Atchley B.A. Biological Science California State University Fresno
Rating:
Summary: excellent book
Review: Johnson's book is an excellent primer on the philosphical underpinnings of naturalism and it's influence on the theory evolution. It should be required reading for every college student.
Rating: 
Summary: What I would expect from a lawyer arguing his case.
Review: Darwin on Trial is a candid snapshot of the gossamer legedermain of the typical "Ok, but . . . " detractor of evolutionary theory. This is perhaps most clear now, given the progress in evolutionary thinking and evidence since the book's writing; but even without that, the book is still only a vain and often impish critique. If this book represents the best criticisms against evolution, then the best criticisms amount to little more than obfuscating orts left on the scientific table. Even so, the book is worth reading, if for no other purpose than to glean the folly of refuting litterly a whole world of evidence.
|
