Rating: Summary: Scientific Reasoning from the Religious Faithful Review: Reason and science abound in this book about the evidence for and the theory of evolution. It presents a much more thorough and balanced overview of evolution than any science textbooks I've read. The author is a law professor who also believes in a God-created universe, but at no time while reading this researched and documented book does one feel the author is proselytizing; indeed, on the topic of evolution, the religious zealots seem to be from the scientific establishment. I guarantee this book will stimulate and excite even die-hard Darwinists or atheists. The author does not attempt to give his readers the definitive answers to the riddles of the origins of life or of humankind; nor does he disallow scientific reasoning, methods, or evidence. Also, very enjoyable to read and equally accessible to laypeople and scientists.
Rating: Summary: Sound and fury...you know the rest Review: Johnson's book has recieved a great deal of press in recent years, but unfortunately it isn't warranted. His attacks on Darwin have often been assumed by laymen to be "objective" and "logical" arguments that somehow shoot straight for the core of Darwinism and have even received praise exactly because they offer argument in place of data! Unfortunately, the majority of Johnson's method involves constructing strawman arguments that fall under his attack, but which are not at all what science has to say about the subject. He constructs false arguments which he claims represent the Darwinist viewpoint, but which are often outdated or even simply false so that they can be bowled over in the next paragraph. His claims about the origin of animals with hard skeletons (the "Cambrian Explosion"), for example, were dated even when the book was originally published and are now simply part of the wastebin of speculation as new fossils resoundingly refute Johnson's claims. More troubling is the fact that this very argument is more an attack on Stephen J. Gould, noted paleontologist and prolific writer, than any sort of cogent argument about the origin of modern animals in the Cambrian. Without a background in the topic, Johnson's arguments may sound alluring to the general public (need I remind anyone of his profession?), but disguising an attack on Gould as a "logical" argument against Darwinian evolution fails to prove the basic thesis of the book. It should be noted that Johnson has a few points now and then about excessive faith in the philosophical concept of naturalism, but these few tidbits are often lost in the much larger house of cards he constructs regarding Darwinism itself. We all know that despite David Copperfield's skill as a magician, he is still perfoming illusions. We know that he simply does it better than we did with our own K-Mart magic sets and have to applaud his showmanship. Johnson too deserves applause for his showmanship, but like the tricks of Mr. Copperfield, Darwin on Trial is showmanship, not scholarship.
Rating: Summary: brillant argued without religious bias Review: The Protestant Phillip Johnson is not a scientist, but a professor of law specialized in the logic of arguments. This is actually a great advantage, as evolution is more bad philosophy and logic that bad science. Johnson successfully avoid all the metaphysical pitfalls and he argues cogently for example that:
- all the predictions of Darwin were infirmed by the scientific investigations in the relevant fields (laboratory testings of mutations and selection, paleontology, compared anatomy, embryology, biochemistry,origin of life) and confirmed instead the predictions of design. This is the biggest part of the book. I could not see any mistake, nor did the scientists who checked the book, nor its critics.
- evolutionists escape all the disproofs of their hypothesis by continuously adapting it to the counterevidences, making it in the end untestable and unscientific. Or by taking evolution as necessary true: since they a priori reject any supernatural cause, they reason that evolution must deductively true. This is not science, but atheistic philosophy.
- evolutionists simply cheat with the meaning of words such as "evolution" so as to endoctrinate profane persons. They first call evolution the observed change in proportion of races (black and white mooths on birch trees) due to natural selection. But then they conclude that the evolution of different species is therefore a fact. But a change in the proportion of different races is far different from the transformation of different species into other ones (from a bactery to a human).
- evolutionists arrange the rule ofs science so as to make the hypothesis of evolution a fact (although no human was there to observe the the bacteries gradually transform into humans, and the laboratory experiments showed the impossibility of such a thing.).
Johson goes further to discuss the Darwinist religion, education, their intolerance and persecution of those who disagree on basis of the evidence.
I think Johnson understated a few points:
- he should have insisted that science ought not be atheistic. The basic presuppositions of science come from Theism (the intelligent Creator created nature with a mathematical order and with uniformity, and created humans with a mind and senses capable of discovering these truths, etc. see chap. 7 of "Scaling the secular city" by James Moreland), whereas according to Atheism one should except chaos instead of aesthetic formulas and of uniformity. Johnson could have mentioned that science arose within a theistic context at the renaissance (see "The soul of science", by Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton).
- he did not clearly point out that mainstream science, being Atheist, cannot be objective (they think: evolution HAS to be true, there cannot be any alternative, whatever the evidence); whereas Theists can objectively interpret the evidence (either God created by evolution or he created by direct creation).
I recommend greatly this book, as well as some other ones on same topic:
- "Evolution: a theory in crisis", by Michael Denton, an Agnostic scientist who details the scientific evidence, and objectively recognizes that it contradicts the theory of evolution
- "Darwin's black box", a brand new book by the Catholic Michael Behe, a Biochemist who demonstrates that biochemical complexity is irreducible and that evolution is therefore impossible.
- "the Creation Hypothesis" edited by James Moreland, with many contributors to the philosophical and scientific aspects
- the other books of Johnson.
Contents:
1 The legal setting
2. Natural selection
3. Mutations great and small
4. The fossil problem
5. The fact of evolution
6. The vertebrate sequence
7. The molecular evidence
8. Prebiological evolution
9. The rules of science
10. Darwinist religion
11. Darwinist education
12. Science and pseudoscience
Epilogue: the books and its critics
Research notes
Inde
Rating: Summary: A confused look at evolution. Review: For anyone interested in the creation/evolution debate, this books pretty much sums up the best creationists can do against evolution. While Johnson does not argue FOR creationism, it is pretty clear that he has that (or some form of it) in the back of his mind. Most of the issues he nitpicks are irrelevant, unresolved, or unimportant. His argument is above average for creationists - but goes nowhere in counteracting the arguments for natural selection and evolution
Rating: Summary: Johnson's logical and unbiased examination adds to debate Review: An excellent, relatively brief book that outlines some of the LOGICAL fallacies of Darwinism "as fact" thinking (which it concentrates on more so than an overall "attack" of natural selection as perhaps the ultimate answer, though a staunch Gould evolutionist still may see Johnson as a heretic). Also, don't be fooled by Johnson's background. Although an attorney and law professor by trade, Johnson brings only his logic and unbiased examination to this book. Johnson does not bring an intolerable fundamentalism, either. Add this book to your collection regardless of what side you are on because, unlike most books in this genre, it seeks the truth without dogmatism
Rating: Summary: A solid piece of convicing evidence argument against Darwin. Review: Issue by issue the author thoroughly presents the case against Darwinian evolution from a legal standpoint. It is a clear, consise piece that evolutionists will find hard to refute. Johnson uses the words of prominent evolutionists, themselves, to paint a picture of confusion, frustration and downright disingenuousness on the part of evolutionists
Rating: Summary: Mostly Good Review: I have generally stayed away from getting engrossed in the always contentious creation/evolution debate - mainly because I'm neither a scientist nor a philosopher and I recognize the limitations these facts have on my ability to responsibly appraise the legitimacy of each side's arguments. As such, I am not well versed in the explosion of literature in this area emanating from both sides, and my critique of this book should be understood with this in mind. As an evangelical committed to Biblical authority, naturalistic evolution is untenable because its metaphysical imperatives are hostile to Christianity. I think Johnson does a good job of demonstrating this. Further, evolutionary scientists are not merely empirical scientists with no interest in epistemology and metaphysics, but quite the contrary, are necessarily expanding Darwinian naturalism into the realm of philosophy and metaphysics. Darwinian science without darwinian metaphysics is no threat to anything - it is the metaphysics of Darwinism that give naturalistic evolution its teeth - and both Darwinists and theists know it. Johnson spends a good bit of time exploring the metaphysical presuppositions (unproven presuppositions) that undergird the entire evolutionist enterprise. In many ways, I think Johnson succeeds in demonstrating that evolutionism is a comprehensive worldview in every sense, opining upon matters of metaphysics and origins that take naturalistic evolution far beyond the realm of empirical science. Johnson also attempts to critique evolution empirically, by discussing the fossil record and biology. Johnson's conclusion in these areas is that support for evolution is sparse at best in the very kind of empirical way that respectable science is supposedly based on. No doubt, debate over the empirical evidence hasn't stopped with Johnson's appraisal of it in this book, but I do think his appraisal generally succeeds in making the much trumpeted 'fact' of evolution quite surmountable. Johnson also discusses philosophy of science and evolutionism's desire to expand its worldview into public education, natural history museums, and all relevant areas of public thought. This discussion only confirms that what may (arguably) have started as a mainly scientific approach to origins and species has mushroomed into a full scale effort to take the Gospel of Evolution to the masses in non-scientific ways and into non-scientific areas. I'm giving the book 4 stars, probably because I'm a bit prejudiced. I agree with others that Johnson's speciality as a lawyer, to some degree, handicaps his ability to speak thoroughly persuasively on scientific matters. I do think Johnson does exhibit a pretty good command of the scientific issues that are discussed here, but just as I'm skeptical of evolutionary scientists switching hats and becoming pseudo-metaphysicists and philosophers with little to no philosophical training, I am likewise skeptical of lawyers acting like scientists. Having said this, Johnson's main purpose in here is to address issues that are more in his area of expertise - logical argumentation and reasoning, rather than assessing empirical science. I think this is mostly a strength of the book, though like his evolutionary counterparts, I do think Johnson falls prey to the idea that knowledge is objective in an autonomous human reasoning kind of way. This, I believe, is an unbiblical notion. Evolutionary ways of explaining the universe did not begin with Darwin - the pre-Socratics tried to explain the universe in ways that prefigure evolutionism as well. Darwin's main achievement was that he laid down the basics of a comprehensive worldview system that allowed people something else other than the Bible to believe in when it came to explaining the universe and origins. I think the result of reading Johnson's book is that the appeal of Darwinism is not that it is a worldview bolstered by solid arguments and empirical evidences (because it definitely isn't), but that it is the place to run for those who reject the Bible. It is hoped by this reader that the evolution's ever more precarious perch atop scientific orthodoxy might eventually give way to a more intellectually respectable empirical and even rationalistic approach to the investigation of origins.
Rating: Summary: This is why OJ got off Review: An absolutely blistering indictment on the entire foundation of the legal industry, and the appalling abuses we can commit with language. I'm reminded of something the great Dr Pauli (of Pauli exclusion principle fame) once said about a paper he was asked to review: "This isn't right. It isn't even wrong."
Rating: Summary: Looking under the rug Review: Preceding negative reviews of this book have focused on issues of science: arguments about fossils, dating, etc. The real issue, which is addressed by Johnson & others elsewhere, regards philosophy. Most proponents of evolution today insist that only atheist science is "real" science. That implies they don't come to science with open minds, but with a commitment to explain the world in purely materialistic terms, regardless of what evidence (or lack thereof) there might be. It also means that all their pro-evolution arguments use a rhetoric designed to avoid any real argument; this is what Johnson is particularly good at exposing, given his legal training. Evolutionism is not a development of empirical science, but a far-reaching attempt to offer a new philosophical framework for humanity -- one independent of Christianity. The biological theory is almost an afterthought; it's full of holes because it is only there to support the "new metaphysic". The "logic" of evolution is: there's no God, but we're here, so there must be a means (purely materialistic) by which we came to be. The fault is in the assumption. Since the Enlightenment, science has not only been a tool to technological development; it has also had a philosophical side, providing a "new metaphysic" to replace that of Christianity, the dominant metaphysic of the previous historial "age". This is critically important -- science not only offers to describe the world, but to interpret it. The theories of the evolutionists are very important to this effort of offering a new interpretation. What do they tell us? That human life has neither meaning nor purpose, nor intrinsic value. In place of the Christian notion of creation in God's image, we now have offered to us creation via accident. In place of a view of human life as sacred, we now have offered to us a fully utilitarian view. The practical consequences of ideologies based on atheism/nihilism/darwinism include: mass murder, abortion, homosexuality (as an accepted "lifestyle"), euthanasia, etc. The horrors of the 20th century, including 200 million dead, show the results of these ideologies when put into practice in real societies. Judge the tree by the fruit. Philip Johnson (and others) do a great service just by calling into question the dogmas of atheist materialism (masquerading as "science") and evolutionism, which today are held to be unquestionable, particularly in public schools where the young are indoctrinated. This book is just a first step, an icebreaker, to get into the issue. I highly recommend Johnson's other books on evolution, and I look forward to reading "The Wedge of Truth" (having seen a preview in Touchstone magazine).
Rating: Summary: A dose of common sense that can't be refuted Review: Darwin on Trial was one of the pivotal books that launched the "Intelligent Design" movement. In truth, the book isn't brilliant - it doesn't need to be. Darwinism is fundamentally flawed, and simple logic (with a healthy dose of facts) shows how weak the theory really is. Johnson's major contribution is demonstrating how Darwinism isn't a scientific theory, but a clever rhetorical trick that dresses up religious notions as science. If you think about it, Darwinism is essentially meaningless. Darwin says, "The species that survive are the species that are best fitted to survive." That statement is objectively meaningless. But philosophers have dressed up this statement in fancy verbage to make it sound like a meaningful proposition when it reality it tells us nothing about how life developed or why. Johnson is not a Creationist (i.e., he doesn't believe that the world is 6,000 years or that dinosaurs roamed the decks of Noah's ark). The fact that establishment scientists feel the need to portray him as a Creationist shows how strong Johnson's argument really is. This is an excellent starting point for deeper explorations into ID.
|