Rating: 
Summary: Does evolution stand up to logic?
Review: Johnson looks at Darwinism from a logical point of view, and asks the question: "Does the evidence back up evolutionary theory or not?" Do we dare ask that question? Are we willing to look at the evidence or not? I think it is ironic that science, which claims to be interested in the facts, seems more interested in proving evolution true than asking this key question. Read the book with an open mind, and see what happens.
Rating: 
Summary: Lies and Deceit
Review: This book is evil. It begins by mixing up the definitions of fact, theory, and hypothesis. Quotes are taken out of context and don't reflect their author's intended meaning. Authors have complained in writing only to see the same mistruths reappear in the 2nd edition. Science and the scientific community are falsely portrayed. Naturalism is substituted for objectivism and Darwinism for evolution. Without knowledge of paleontology or anthropology and how the scientific community really works, this book may sound very convincing.
Rating:
Summary: A Lawyer Dissects the Evolutionary Dogma
Review: I am amused by those who criticize Johnson, a lawyer, for examining evolutionary theory. While lawyers are not scientists, they often delve into scientific issues even during their legal practice. Moreover, lawyers are explicitly trained to detect and expose fallacious arguments, of which evolutionary theory has quite a few (that's putting it mildly). One does not have to agree with every detail of Johnson's excellent analysis in order to appreciate his deconstruction of evolution. Finally, those who complain that legal standards of evidence should not be applied to ostensibly scientific theories should recognize that they have themselves to blame: Were evolutionary theory not taught as fact to laypersons and unsuspecting students, it would not be also put in a position where it is subject to the highest standards of evidentiary reasoning--and where it fails miserably.
Rating:
Summary: Painful
Review: On another occasion, Johnson claimed that his only scientific training was during high school. After reading his book, I can all but believe him.Throughout the book, Johnson goes out of his way to misunderstand evolutionary theory, biology, embryology, and the scientific method. Many of his arguments are nothing but old chestnuts, already proposed by YEC's (and debunked by scientists). "Natural selection as a tautology", "no transitional fossils", and "all mutations are harmful" are all offered to the reader, as though they hadn't already been adressed. Johnson often refers to YEC's and the critic they have met, yet he supposedly manages to overlook the literature that already *has* dealt with his arguments. Especially entertaining is Johnson's line of reasoning in rejecting the transitions between reptiles and mammals. He often chides "darwinists" (mostly Dawkins, to be fair) for turning liabilities into assets, but here, he does the exact same thing, and proclaims the many possible intermediates between reptiles and mammals as a *problem* for the theory of common descent. Since mammals only evolved from reptiles once, most of those fossils aren't "the true" transition. "If most were not then perhaps all were not." (pp 79) One fears ever having to hire a lawyer who uses Johnson's "logic": "Your Honor, that the witness picked out my client in a line-up is absolutely irrelevant. Since only one person commited the crime, most of the people in that line-up are not guilty. If most are not then perhaps all are not." I can only reccomend this to persons who need to be reassured in their denial of scientific discoveries (if only by incoherent arguments), as well as anybody masochistic enough to endure this book to see what "the other side" thinks.
Rating:
Summary: It seems the enlightenment failed!!!
Review: Every time I see people try to discredit science with superstition and religion I cringe. Johnson's diatribe against natural selection is weak at best. At some points his thinly veiled objectivity decends into a maelstrom of blatant opinion, speculation and generally bad science. Johnson clamours for a "theistic" science that gives notions of god the same sway as hard facts. Lamentably this is analogous to andmitting fallacies into the field of logic. This book is just another bad attempt at science that will be confined to the bargain aisle of "psudo science".
Rating:
Summary: Required reading for stubborn Darwinists
Review: I do not have time for a detailed review but I must say here that Johnson does a superb job of exposing blind Darwinism for what it is. It has been assumed to be fact for so long that people actually believe that it is based upon empirical evidence. The problem is the use of the term "evolution" in some cases. For instance Johnson points out that the truth of variation within a species and adaptability to conform to environmental changes does not prove that humans evolved from bacteria. It is true that evidence abounds for microevolution but that really should come as no surprise. The common dog proves that as do modern humans. Variation, natural selection etc. does not prove that everything evolved from a single celled creature. Another aspect that Johnson explores is the mindset of modern scientists that reject objectivity in order to defend their pet theories. This book along with Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" supplies the answer to Richard Dawkins and his fanatical atheism.
Rating:
Summary: Darwinist Religion Exposed
Review: Although Johnson does attack darwinism directly, the main thrust of his logical assault is against the philosophical underpinnings of darwinism, those critical materialistic assumptions which darwinists have accepted as a priori truths and are trying to force upon the rest of us. Johnson does not build a case for creationism, but simply points out that darwinism is a hypothesis which depends upon a fanatical devotion to scientific naturalism. The main problem is that the hypothesis itself just doesn't stand up to the rigorous empirical tests which true science is supposed to be able to pass. Johnson demonstrates this well and shows that darwinism is more a religious movement than a scientific movement. What Darwin really provided his disciples was not so much a compelling scientific theory, but a materialist alternative to Christianity. Darwin, like Freud, the feminists, and other religious groups (including Christianity) provided a philosophical tautology which makes itself immune to attack by explaining everything, when in fact the explanation is wholly dependent upon a religious devotion to the tautology. Johnson's book is a remarkable exercise of logical analysis with tremendous sociological implications, demonstrating the close-minded dogmatism that can occur when science leaves its empirical foundations behind and becomes faith-based religion.
Rating:
Summary: Changed my mind
Review: I was very skeptical when I went to hear Phillip Johnson speak. But the force of his logic really knocked me out. I bought this book and could not put it down. In clear, non-technical terms he laid out the case for a scientific establishment so personally invested in Neo-Darwinian orthodoxy that they will cling to a rapidly crumbling theory at all costs. He shows how folks lke Stephen Jay Gould cherish Darwinism more as a religion than a science. This is one of the ten most important books I have ever read. But don't stop with JOhnson. I'd highly recommend the constructive Intelligent Design works by guys like Hugh Ross, William Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer, Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe, etc. These are guys with Ph.D., who have published and taught at some of the best universities in the world who have seen evidence for Intelligent Design in nature.
Rating: 
Summary: A good start in critically examining evolution
Review: I have read the 1-and no star reviews below and have been struck like several others by how they lack specific examples of Johnson's 'ignorance' of scientific principles, or fail to counter any one of his examples. Like many children educated in public schools I simply accepted what I read in textbooks as true, until as a Senior in high school I realized that in Physics the Theory of Relativity is being constantly tested and assailed, but in Biology Evolution is only tinkered with (by Stephen J. Gould and others), never questioned outright among 'respectable' faculty members. The other reviewers claim that the only alternative critics of Evolution can offer is the Creation story, but with the development of Intelligent Design theory (see William Dembski) there is room for discussion for other possible extraterrestrial origins of life on Earth. One other point I can make here as a Historian - if you insist that the cause of science can never be advanced by a 'fundamentalist Christian' then you ought to reject Sir Isaac Newton's Laws, for he wrote more books on Christian Theology than he did on Gravity.
Rating: 
Summary: A Well - Balanced look at evolution
Review: Philip Johnson is to be commended for writing a book about evolution that avoids many of the pitfalls of this fascinating subject. Even while critiqueing their theories, Johnson's respect for the minds of today's top biologists is evident. He also sticks to the real evidence - things like genetics and the fossil record - rather than the asinine "the earth is only 6,000 years old" nonsense that comes out of the books of many creation scientists. The thing that I like the most is the even-handed and logical approach to the problem. Even if you believe that creationists are "all wet", give this book a read. Hopefully it will give you some food for thought, at the very least.
|
