Rating: 
Summary: Why You Do Not Want Lawyers Teaching Science
Review: Johnson is a smart man and it may be a case of too much smarts of a certain kind, in this case the gift of rhetoric, that allows him to structure a sound, mathematically logical argument which unfortunately has very little to do with Science. Johnson has no time for creation scientists. He defends an idea, as old as Aristotle, that could be called "vitalism" --- the notion that all things begin with the end in mind --- that within the seed of tree is the desired, pre-destined, end or "Teleos" of defined life programme. Such a notion of course is little more scientifically plausible than the idiocy that the world was created in 6 days. Therefore from the standpoint of Science there is little more to teleos than blind belief in a supreme being --- both are irrelevant to the ends of Science and what evolution actually is, since Evolution by its very definition does not "strive" toward anything. To the layman however, repudiating the idiocy of Genesis and establishing the possibility of a creator somehow imbuing the world with purpose is somehow more "plausible" for those with very little understanding of Science. It is the thin edge of the wedge argument: if you can believe in ultimate purpose, you can believe in God, if you can believe in God you can then refute Darwinisn --- and that is the ultimate mission of this book --- to defeat Darwinisn and foist some crooked idea of teleos-based Science in its stead. Johnson would probably want that Science to also be Christian based, but to his credit, he does not push it that much. He does however, through a series of straw-man arguments, establish a notion of ultimate purpose and the Godhead, both which are challenged most readily by Darwinism. The arguements are tight at times and smoothly linear. However his selection of facts is just that, his understanding of biology minimal, and we should forget his chapter on the "Fossil Record" -- it is clearly not based on any clear paleaontological understanding. In final analysis most of the arguments that Johnson uses are similar to that accepted by the prevailing Scientific community at the time Darwin in the 1850s. In that sense I found the book fascinating in its ability to represent old arguments very well. For anyone reading Mayer and any early histories of Darwin you will find many of the arguments interesting and equally stodgy and clearly relegated outside of accepted Science by the end of the 19th Century. There is little Science here as the book is wholly rhetoric. With much of rhetoric, as Aristotle said, it is a tool but it is not truth. In this case you are very clearly seeing how an argument could be constructed against Darwin. It is very interesting from the standpoint of argumentation, however, like a logical argument against the law of gravity, there is nothing to recommend it. I gave it a 3 because I think the rhetoric rates a 5 and the Science rates a 0.
Rating: 
Summary: A truly objective work...
Review: Of all the many creationist and evolutionist books i have read, this one is the ONLY truly objective book i have read so far. It was written by an academic lawyer whose job is to analyze the logic of arguments and then identify the assumptions that lie behind those arguments. He does not consider himself an evolutionist or a creationist, but rather an outsider who accepts both possibilities but also recognizes that both are based on wide assumptions and a lot of faith. He has done an excellent job of keeping this book objective and unbiased. It is a book that can be agreed upon and enjoyed by any true scientist = evolutionist, creationist or otherwise.
Rating:
Summary: This Book Is Not For The Feint At Heart
Review: This book hits it right on the head: Evolution is about as true as the Easter Bunny. There is no "evidence" for evolution, just crazy theories. This book lays waste to evolution's claims that it has evidence to support its theories. Johnson dissects evolution's scant bits of "evidence" and powerfully shows how this evidence is fake or non-existant. Contrary to the other readers' critiques on this website, this book is not religious. The author does not preach, nor does he "push morality." There is no discussion about God or creationism. The book simply cross-examines evolution. I challenge all scientists and religious people to read this book with an open mind. If you aren't afraid of truth, then you will find this book to be compelling. However, if evolution is your "undying truth" then you will be offended. Plain and simple. The author punished evolution, but could have made it look even more silly by proposing questions like: "If a single cell is composed of 10 million separate parts, including RNA and DNA, then where did the original 10 million parts that formed the first cell come from?" Or, "How did these 10 million parts simultaneously assemble themselves without help?" Or, "What jump-started the original cell so that it became alive?" Or, "If the earth has suffered several life-ending events (e.g. death of the dinosaurs), then how did the entire evolutionary process start again?" The questions could go on to infinity. Bottom line, don't believe anybody's rhetoric. Read it and objectively review it on your own.
Rating: 
Summary: Creationism disguised as science.
Review: Pure bilge, Johnson attempts to mask his creationism as science. Neatly side stepping anythng untidy such as actual logic or scientific method, he still manages to say with a straight face that because science cannot explain everything, it must be wrong, scientifically. Now, Scientific method, correctly applied, never states what IS, only what is NOT. Thus, anything unexplained is... unexplained. Anything explained is... not yet disproven. Johnson ignores this and happily claims that because his brain is too small to figure it out, and apparently other scientists brains are as well, then the only explanation for all that unexplained stuff is that God did it. I suppose if man had been meant to fly, God would have given him wings. Well, God gave me logic, and this is not a logical book. Don't rot your brain with this.
Rating:
Summary: Penetrating and Insightful
Review: This book reveals how ground rules and word definitions are used to insulate the modern story of the unguided origin and development of life on earth from criticism. It shows how concern that an explanation be "science" has supplanted concern that the explanation be true. "What first drew my attention to the [creation-evolution dispute]", says Johnson in the book, "was the way the rules of argument seemed to be structured to make it impossible to question whether what we are being told about evolution is really true." By examining the playing field on which the origins debate takes place, Professor Johnson makes an important and lasting contribution to that debate. The impact of his work is evident in the blossoming "Intelligent Design" movement. I found this book to be the most insightful and profound contribution to the origins debate I'd seen in a long time. The ten years that have passed since its publication have not dulled its importance.
Rating:
Summary: WoW!
Review: For a fourteen year old teenager I find this book amazing. I am a christian with a father that is a scientist (micro-biologist) and a christian. It definetly puts Darwin as well as many other "Darwinists" on Trial. It gives a realistic, meaningful explanation for our Creation- By our Awesome and Powerful Lord God!
This book Is definetly worth reading! Even for all of you "evolutionists" out there...it may be life changing!! For me it was difficult to understand but I had someone to explain it. Its a truthful book that discusses the false evidence of evolution and why it can not be a fact. I wish my Earth Science teacher would have read it!
Rating:
Summary: The Creationist Manifesto
Review: Phillip Johnson's DARWIN ON TRIAL should be viewed by most as Creationism's MEIN KAMPF or COMMUNIST MANIFESTO; a slick, well-written legal brief against evolution which is merely a litany of Johnson's anger towards "naturalistic" science and a compendium of alleged flaws made by distinguished 20th Century evolutionary biologists. It soon becomes quite apparent that Johnson neither understands nor appreciates why science must remain an enterprise devoid of supernatural explanations; one should only look to the Salem Witch Trials - so brilliantly recreated in Arthur Miller's play THE CRUCIBLE - to see how far the legal profession has come from embracing supernatural explanations to relying instead on credible, reasonable evidence (However, even today, it isn't totally perfect, since some lawyers have relied on quack scientists such as some who think they can find bite marks on long buried corpses.). In twelve relatively short chapters Johnson valiantly tries to make the case that there isn't any evidence for Darwinian evolution, that evolutionary biologists are guilty of comitting the crime of tautology for using circular reasoning in citing evidence which supports evolution, and that Darwinisim - and by extension, science, itself - has become a religion since it cloaks itself in a "naturalistic" philosophy which rejects any notion of a Creator intervening in natural processes. Oddly enough, Johnson has the temerity to cite philosopher Karl Popper's falsifiability criterion for good science in explaining why evolution isn't science, but instead, a religion. However, Johnson fails to mention how a "theistic science" - one which acknowledges the possiblity of supernatural intervention - would be consistent with Popper's reasoning. Like classic Young Earth Creationists such as Henry Morris and Duane Gish, Johnson dismisses much of the scientific evidence for evolution. For example, he distorts the important work done by distinguished ecologists Peter and Rosemary Grant on the Galapagos finches; undoubtedly one of our finest ongoing field studies of microevolution and Natural Selection. He also trivializes the important work of Brown University biologist Hermon Carey Bumpus which demonstrated how natural selection works, sarcastically noting that Bumpus killed dying sparrows so he could do his scientific research (Actually these birds were dying, and Bumpus did try saving them, but Johnson ignores this point to make the case that Bumpus was insensitive towards his subjects.). Instead of reading DARWIN ON TRIAL, I would strongly recommend reading Robert Pennock's TOWER OF BABEL, Kenneth Miller's FINDING DARWIN'S GOD, and Philip Kitcher's ABUSING SCIENCE - all of which have devestatingly effective critiques of creationism and its advocates, including Johnson. Of these three books, Pennock's tome does an excellent job pointing out the close intellectual kinship between traditional young earth creationism and Intelligent Design.
Rating:
Summary: Rhetoric and the misplaced lawyer...
Review: Thank goodness the rigors of a serious profession detoured Johnson from becoming a scientist. Most assuredly, his talent in using Socratic logic to twist, distort, and mangle information has been used to the best of his abilities in this text. He managed to misrepresent evolutionary theory in just about every way possible (through creative quoting), and he managed to find a publisher to print [it]. Some advice for Johnson: stick to law. Some advice to the reader: take a look at a scientific journal one of these days. It's a much more honest viewpoint on evolutionary theory than the religious right could ever present.
Rating:
Summary: "Burn the Heretic at the Stake!"
Review: That seems to be the typical Evolutionist's reaction to the suggestion that Darwin's theory is flawed. Much like the religious radicals of old who excommunicated or tortured those whose scientific observations dared to contradict the tenets of their established orthodoxy, the Evolutionists of today harshly rebuke and calumniate those who would dare observe and comment on the fatal flaws in their quasi-religious and anti-scientific theory of evolution. As a law student, I was intrigued by the author's legal background, and his punishing analysis of Darwinism. Indeed, rhetorically, the author places Mr. Darwin and his surrogates on trial, and demands evidence to support their evolutionary conclusions. Like a good attorney, he dismantles their emotional cantings and reduces to smoldering ashes the edifice of macroevolution. I recommend this book to anyone with an open mind. As for those who demand evidence of God before believing in Him, I challenge them to apply the same standard to evolution: how is it possible that anyone could believe in macro-evolution when the fossil record is absolutely void of 'evolving' species? But, who am I to pose such a piercing question? After all, I'm just a heretic.
Rating:
Summary: Gorillas in our midst?
Review: Once, when discussing non-biblical histories of Jesus, and those who discount them while unhesitatingly accepting those of Caesar, a friend replied, "That's because Caesar never said, "Give up your mistresses!'". He was exactly right. Anyone who's ever debated Darwinists learns quickly how they really do bellow, bluff, evade and run for cover as if descended from apes. Well, the logic of the Darwinian imperative to which they subscribe places that burden on them. One must understand this in any discussion of Darwinism with it's disciples. Hence, as one reads the reviews here of Darwin on Trial it is clear that some of its critics haven't read it; and of those who have, only a handful have raised competent objections. In brief, Philip Johnson takes a bright metaphysical sword after Darwinism and cuts it into little pieces. Exposing it's deficiencies both as a science and a philosophy. The problems: 1.The fossil record doesn't support it. 2.It contradicts known physical laws and accepted scientific methodology, e.g., falsifiability. 3.It's advocates must resort to ad hominem attacks, tautologies and circular reasoning (but rarely hard evidence) when making the case for it. I could go on a while but these are the book's more salient points. Johnson is an engaging and clear thinking writer: "The fossils provide much more discouragement than support for Darwinism when they are examined objectively, but objective examination has rarely been the object of Darwinist paleontology. The Darwinist approach has consistently been to find some supporting fossil evidence, claim it as proof for "evolution" and then ignore the difficulties." In addressing Francis Crick's "panspermia" model of how life on earth began: "Assuming away the difficult points is one way to solve an intractable problem; another is to send the problem off into space...the basic idea (of panspermia) is that an advanced civilization, possibly facing extinction, sent primitive life forms to earth in a spaceship." On Darwinist scholarship: "What they never find is evidence that contradicts the common ancestry thesis, because to Darwinists such evidence cannot exist. The "fact of evolution" is true by definition, and so negative information is uninteresting, and generally unpublishable." Johnson believes that Darwinism is a essentially a fiercely conformist, anti-theistic and materialistic philosophy masquerading as science. He is correct in this. My one fault of Darwin on Trial is that Johnson offers little in the way of debating the Darwinist. (One way is to open the can of worms of Social Darwinism in their laps. They dislike this immensely but that's another story.) Darwin on Trial is a fascinating intellectual adventure, as well as a good read. Judging from the howling and snarling, here and elsewhere, Johnson has hit the target.
| 
