Darwin on Trial

Rating:
Summary: Bread and circuses for the faithful
Review: What kind of a disregard for the truth must one have when one says "the argument cannot be proved either way therefore the argument goes to the best arguer" ? Sadly, Mr Johnson, science does not work like that and as a lawyer you merely confirm what the vast majority believes about your profession to begin with.

Ignoring vast amounts of evidence not just from biology and paleontology and taking material from his evolutionist whipping boys Gould and Dawkins, out of context the author builds a great case against Darwin's Theory of Evolution. One wonders whether he could build the same case if he actually bothered to consider the evidence he ignores (or more probably didn't bother seeking out), evidence which would certainly acquit Darwin. For instance the evidence of paleobotany is not nearly as equivocal as that for paleontology providing much hard evidence for evolution. But theists aren't concerned about plants, they're just miffed at being labelled monkeys and will move heaven and earth and scientific fact to deny that they are.

We now have witnessed the evolution of new species, the fact that we previously hadn't creationists used to hold as proof that evolution was suspect. May we now ask for a withdrawal of this objection ? Hardly surprising given Steve Jones' introduction to "Darwin's Ghost" in which he states that nature is constant change and it is difficult to quantify what constitutes a species anyway, a species being an almost arbitrary pair of lines drawn on a spectra of life.

It would be nice if, in a spirit of fairness, Johnson wrote another book called "God on Trial". He would find that the evidence against God overwhelming, particularly if the rebuttal of the cosmological argument were introduced to the discussion (note for theists : the rebuttal falsifies God, sorry). The reviewer from Texas states that science is making a false assumption in stating that there must be materialist explanation for our being here and that because of this initial false assumption all subsequent evolutionary theory is wrong. Well, sorry, if first we examine God and find that explanation false (which was done in the 19th century, you just haven't heard about it) then the assumption scientists make is the only valid one left (I trust we can leave UFO explanations out of it).

So if you want a laugh at the hoops theists will jump through in order to keep their sense of adequacy intact then by all means read this book. Just don't expect scientists to treat it with anything other than the contempt it merits for it's blatant disregard for truth.

Rating:
Summary: A Decent Summary of Intelligent Design Creationism
Review: The author, Phillip E. Johnson, has written a number of books advocating "theistic science," and has been active in the fight to get "creation science" taught in the schools along side or in place of evolution. This book is as good a place as any to get an introduction to the ideas and contentions of contemporary creationism. As you will see, many of the ideas are retreads of old criticisms of Darwin's ideas, and their alternative "theistic science" is not developed at all. If you really want a "Gee Whiz!" book of unanswered questions in modern evolutionary theory, see Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box.

Rating:
Summary: dishonest and shallow; offers no alternative
Review: This book is dishonest because Johnson tries to misrepresent many normal scientists as having doubts about normal science. Over and over, Johnson quotes Stephen Jay Gould's criticisms of traditional evolution as if they were criticisms of evolution itself. In fact, Gould is simply trying to argue for punctuated equilibrium rather than evolution at a constant rate.

This book is shallow: Johnson has apparently only read the popular-science literature. Virtually all of the book is written as if Gould's and Dawkins' popular books constituted the entire literature on evolution.

Once again we hear the tired creationist argument that evolution only occurs within species, when the fossil record shows clearly that new species arise from old ones, e.g. horses and rhinos arose from a common ancestor. One wonders at the dismal picture of the history of life implied by this within-species view of evolution: God created dinosaurs, trilobites, and humans simultaneously, but later decided arbitrarily to extinguish the vast majory of species. It's all downhill. With no mechanism for replacing extinct species, one can only imagine that the world will end up with no life at all. The idea also doesn't work because there are no clearly definable species among obligately nonsexual organisms such as bacteria.

Finally, this book offers no real alternative to evolution. Instead, Johnson suggests allowing supernatural causes and faith-based reasoning into science. If supernatural science had anything to offer, then presumably it would have resulted in a consistent, useful body of scientific knowledge. It hasn't. There are as many types of creationism as there are creationists, and that's the way it will remain until they admit that empirical evidence is the only way to tell whose theory is right.

Rating:
Summary: Sweeping it all under the rug.
Review: Science has had philosophical underpinnings from its very beginnings: not just since the Enlightenment. David C. Lindberg shows this admirably in his book <<The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450>>. New discoveries, new instruments and new analytical tools have periodically led to important changes in the philosophy that underlies scientific research, which has always sought to interpret the world around us, not just describe it. Alan Gurney's <<Below the Convergence: Voyages Towards Antarctica, 1699-1839>> also shows this well, as does Lisa Jardine's <<Worldly Goods: A New History of the Renaissance>>.

Philip E. Johnson's <<Darwin on Trial>> isn't even in the same universe--let alone the same league--as these fine studies. Like most Creationists, he waves his hands and tries mightily to assume away the evidence that supports any advances he finds disturbing.

To understand the evolutionary path our ancestors have taken on their way to the achievements of modern science, I recommend that you read any of the three books I've mentioned here. Each of them is a far better investment than Johnson's attempt to sweep modern science under a rug and ignore it.

Rating:
Summary: Scientific critique of evolutionary theory.
Review: Other reviews of this book discuss the broad themes, so I will concentrate on picking out one or two examples. How could a foreleg evolve into a wing? By Darwinian theory every stage of this evolution must be better adapted to survival than the stage before. On the other hand we know that intermediate stages, particularly the not-quite-evolved-wing that is not yet suitable for flight, are useless as either foreleg or wing. Darwinian theory seems to imply that such involved evolution could not occur. Evolutionists might claim that it must have been suitable for something because it did evolve this way, but this would be circular reasoning. It is common to say (or imply) that the wing is better fit to survive and so supports evolutionary theory, but it seems to refute that theory when looked at as a continuous evolutionary process instead of looking only at the start and finish.

It gets better. Consider the bat, an animal that navigates by sonar. It has two sonar organs: an emitter and a receiver. These had to evolve simultaneously for each is useless without the other. There is no room in evolutionary theory to explain this. The author points out numerous holes such as this in the standard theory.

While it is tempting to some to conclude that evolutionary theory is simply wrong, the correct conclusion is that it is incomplete and should be taught as such. Nothing says that the standard theory cannot have been a factor in the development of life that exists today and it seems it almost certainly was, but it is an incomplete theory. Please notice I have said nothing about what the alternative might be and in this I have followed the book, for the author does not appear to be a creationist from its content. The best one sentence summary of Darwin On Trial is that the author makes a powerful critique of evolutionary theory from within the bounds of accepted science.

I never expected to be impressed with this book. I was a dyed-in-the-wool believer in the standard theory until I read this book and found cogent reasoning from observable facts. I confess I read it only to make a point to another person who believes in creationism and said I should at least get some data. I am still not a creationist but have certainly learned the limits of Darwin's theory, something I believe Darwin would have agreed with.

Rating:
Summary: Darwin crossexamined
Review: This short and influential work,in the line of many critiques of Darwinism, including another with the legal metaphor, Macbeth's Darwin Retried, revealed how easy it is for a non-specialist observer on the subject of evolution to find flaws in the reasoning in its theoretical foundation as natural selection. Five short chapters and the job is done, after a century of rocket science. Often criticized for religious views that are in fact unstated in the book, the author methodically proceeds to pick through the misleading presentation of evolution that is omnipresent in the literature on the subject, and which more than justify the excoriated outsider's demand for some straightforward answers. Johnson's critique of the posture of naturalism is open to challenge, no doubt, but his basic point is clear, a viewpoint is made axiomatic and the theory moves in relation to that almost unconsciously. While we can consider extended views of naturalism, disconcerting no doubt the Creationist, it is true that the record of Darwinism consistently plays ostrich to any evidence discordant with what it *thinks* must be a 'naturalistic' explanation. This book is also a challenge to the entrenchment of a particular paradigm in the universities, a challenge to very foundations of peer review as this has foisted on the public a perspective on evolution that is easily shown to be at variance both with the known facts and the historical record of the research tradition itself. This elusive indoctrination factor is a scandal that the academic system must finally reckon with, whatever their opinion of Mr. Johnson. One should also say that in the beginning, so in the end...The original challenge of Darwin was to a similar hold on the universities in the time of Paley and his classic work on the argument by design. Breaking out from this rigidity once again induces a sense of deja vu. Whatever one's views on the debate of science and religion, the many criticisms of Johnson and others miss the point in the sense that it is not possible to claim a foundation for atheism in a theory as brittle, almost rigged, as selectionist Darwinism. To have claimed otherwise, in the fashion in Dawkins, is to trespass the grounds of the metaphysical with an empirical theory that is theoretically shallow and ironically sets up the scientific viewpoint for reversal. Looking at the current Kansas debate, it is important to consider the ways in which scientists have brought the confusion on themselves.

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: Same Old Story
Review: Phillip Johnson, like so many creationists, is like a child insistent that "there is room for Santa in theories of the origins of Christmas presents". And despite being shown strong evidence of a very plausible alternative theory using known elements (parents) the child persists, going through example after example of gifts he "can't explain" whose appearance in his friend's living room seems "irreducibly complex", beyond the scope of a mere parent to pull off.

His problems with evolution are no different. Never mind the myriad facts found that support evolution - Johnson and his cronies will just keep backing up saying "oh yeah, well what about THIS!" They are oblivious to the fact that claims of "irreducible complexity" merely amount to saying "I can't figure out how this happened", and as such speak to the limitations of the speaker, not the limitations of evolutionary theory.

But this should come as no surprise, since their ignorance of the basic fundamentals of science are exposed in virtualy every utterance, from their inabilility to understand the progressive, incomplete nature of scientific theory, to the laughable claim by one poster here that evolution is not science because the entire process cannot be replicated. By that "reasoning", the theory that the sun exists is not science.

Science means replicable, falsifiable TESTING of a theory, which with evolution happens every time a new fossil is dug up, since, as another poster mentioned, the possiblity exists for a T-Rex skeleton with human remains inside to be discovered and destroy evolutionary theory on the spot. This falsifiability is precisely what is lacking in creationism (all facts being accepted with a shrug and "God must have meant it to be that way"), and why it is most certainly NOT science.

And PLEASE folks, let's not bore each other with the pedantic claim that Johnson is merely acting as a good scientific critic, and is not pushing creationism at all. His creationist agenda is the only reason for his behavior. When someone who is NOT a fundamentalist Christian comes forward with evolutionary criticisms, then we'll talk.

And shouldn't that raise some interesting questions for the creationists? If the evidence REALLY favored creationism, then it stands to reason that someone out there BESIDES fundamentalist Christians would think so, right? No problem for the creationists - for every troublesome fact like this, they merely invent a conspiracy that explains it (sans evidence of course).

There's no reason for reading this book, as its arguments are both worthless, and unoriginal. It's all been refuted before.

Rating:
Summary: Daring to ask the difficult questions
Review: Phillip Johnson's Darwin On Trial is an essential read for those who earnestly seek the truth behind man's origin. Bringing to light some particularly troubling discrepancies, Johnson's critique is written with intelligence and clarity. Read it and ask the question yourself, "How much do scientists really know aboutevolution?"

Rating:
Summary: Over 200 pages versus over 100 years? Whatever...
Review: An acquaintance lent me this book. I have been an amateur follower of the evolution-creation debate and, being of the opinion that the scientific theory of evolution is the superior concept, I was curious as to what Darwin on Trial could offer. The back cover describes Darwin on Trial as 'the controversial book that rocked the scientific establishment!' This grossly exaggerates the effect that this 200+ page book had on over a hundred years of well-established scientific investigation, although the book is generally regarded by some as one of the best of its kind (although that is not saying much).

Johnson is a law professor specializing in the logic of arguments. He is also a Christian and 'philosophical theist'. Johnson's opinion is that his outsider status may be superior to that of a specialized scientist when it comes to analyzing evolution, which covers a variety of sciences. Johnson could have a point, assuming the he has knowledge of the subject. However, throughout this book Johnson shows he lacks that knowledge.

The biggest problem with Johnson's work, in my opinion, is his constant confusion of the naturalistic approach of scientific investigation with full-fledged philosophical naturalism. Any philosopher or scientist knows that science is limited seeking natural explanations for natural phenomenon in the natural world. As others have said, Johnson's appeal to allow the supernatural into science would make the world safe for lazy scientists. There are times when I am working in the laboratory when I would like to explain away the occasional anomalous result as being due to 'gremlins' or some such nonsense. However, that would not explain the evidence or allow me to make predictions. A 'supernatural explanation' is contradiction in terms.

Johnson also argues his case like a lawyer rather than as a scientist. He uses flawed arguments creationists have use in attempts to discredit evolution, and supports those arguments with selective use of evidence. I will not go into the problems here, as there are books, journals and internet resources that one can find that expertly critique the arguments and evidence Johnson uses. Johnson gets much of his evidence from popular books (Gould, Dawkins, etc.) and magazines (such a Science or Nature), but was he aware that there is a vast amount of information to be found on the subject in many other scientific journals? In addition, many of Johnson's resources are rather old (30+ years old) and I wonder if at least a few of the quotes in the book are taken out of context. Also, for someone who specializes in the logic of arguments, Johnson seems to use arguments from authority frequently. I suppose that this illustrates the differences between 'lawyer logic' and actual logic.

Johnson's work has some other problems. He constantly uses terms like evolution, Darwinism, Darwinist, creation and creationist in such a confusing manner that it becomes hard to understand what he means at times. Johnson confuses fact and theory in science, and in doing so he cites the debates between scientists regarding the mechanisms of evolution as a weakness of evolution. However, such discussions regarding the mechanisms behind observed phenomena are common in all fields of science and serve to better science by strengthening theories or creating new theories. Also, Johnson's responses to his critics in this 2nd edition are rather childish and he ignores or glosses over many of the more profound criticisms.

In the last few chapters that we reach the 'climax' of the book. Johnson claims to have shown that mutations, natural selection, fossil evidence, etc., do not support the 'Darwinists', so why do they keep promoting evolution? Why, it's practically a conspiracy, of course! The atheists, philosophical naturalists, materialists, anti-religionists, etc. need to have evolution otherwise their whole worldview would supposedly fall apart. And what's worse is that these groups want to push their agenda on your children!

Give me a break. Reading these last few chapters, it was hard not to keep from laughing. This conspiracy theory/'religion' of Darwinism claim is Johnson again going back to the creationist bag of flawed arguments. Exposing this 'conspiracy' seems to be the true purpose of this book. Scientists know that many topics are outside the realm of scientific investigation. Johnson generalizes the opinions of a few scientists to scientists in general. Johnson may be surprised to find out that most scientists have some degree of religiousness, but, being scientists, they do not allow this to bias their studies as they recognize that it would be bad science. To make matters worse, Johnson misrepresents concepts like naturalism and humanism, and his own Christian bias shows through. He seems overly concerned that the scientific theory of evolution implies a purposeless universe, which is something he just cannot accept. However, Johnson has no trouble accepting all of the other scientific concepts that make no claims regarding the supernatural. I guess this reveals something about the true nature of the creation-evolution debate for some people at the personal level.

Johnson does stay away from the unsupportable creationist side of the debate. He even criticizes creationists like Gish and Morris on at least a couple of occasions. But Johnson's lack of knowledge of evolution and science, his arguing style, and his use of flawed creationist arguments against evolution make this book not much better than other anti-evolution/creationist fare. As some of the reviews here have shown, it might convince those with little to no knowledge of science and philosophy, as well as those who are already convinced that evolution is wrong. However, those of us who know better give it one star, if only because zero stars is not yet an option.