Rating: 
Summary: Logical and Easy to Understand
Review: The title is deceptive. It is not Darwin on trial, but rather Darwinism. After a massive 140-year hunt for Evolution's fossil evidence the record looks about the same as it did in Darwin's day - which, as Darwin himself said at the time, was not enough to substantiate the theory.This is a good starter book for anyone who is curious as to why many non-Evolutionists believe the way they do. Darwinists have an interest in perpetuating the myth that opposition to the theory comes from religious yahoos rather than science itself. They are also known to pretend that science is beyond the comprehension of the general public (ie lawyers). This helps them to control the debate over Evolution through ridicule and intimidation. The book should do well for those without a heavy science background. It is logical and easy to understand. Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crises" are pretty good chasers (neither author is a Biblical Creationist).
Rating: 
Summary: THINK HARD
Review: At last, great Darwin was sent to a defendant seat.It means we needn't think hard such questions as "Who am I?" "Where do I come from?" any more since Prof. Philip E.Johnson gave us a hint---God created everyting! But, it's really a pity that there is another question of life?" It seems that I have still to think hard though H.W.Longfellow sang us "Life is real! Life is earnest! And the grave is not its goal." After reading DARWIN ON TRIAL, the fouth question Perhaps, in my opinion, Earthman is not a Man of ability to answer these questions; just like Robot cannot imagine his creator. Don't worry, dear Earthmen! There is a happening that gives us great pleasure or satisfaction--- Think hard!
Rating:
Summary: More of a case against natural selection than evolution
Review: Most theists (including myself) are quite happy to accept that human beings arose as a result of evolution, and such a process of Creation by no means invalidates the existence of God. The main topic which Johnson refutes here is the process of natural selection - which is obviously the element of "blindness" in evolution. I certainly don't believe that we got here "by accident", and contemporary scientific enquiry reveals that any proposals that we did get here by accident is special pleading in the extreme. As a previous reviewer has noted, any evidence that new DNA information has been added enough times by random mutations to form the complexity of human beings is negligible. For a "blind, purposeless" force to let blind atoms accidentally give rise to sentient beings such as ourselves (including the existence of consciousness and love), is an irrational proposal in the extreme. In this book, Johnson shows that the case against us arising by 'accident' is excessively strong.
Rating: 
Summary: Evolution does not mean there is no God
Review: First of all the reason I gave this one star is because of the method in which Johnson goes about trying to de-bunk evolution. I welcome books that try to show flaws and deal with doubts in the theory, in an objective way, and perhaps prove it wrong, without resorting to insulting scientists etc. The question is does evolution really mean that there is no God? Or does it simply suggest that the Bibles version of how God created the universe may be a little more complicated? I am not completly convinced that evolution occurs, but am open to the posibility that it might happen because I am no expert in the field, and so until I decide to study it extensively I can't make up my mind yet. But I do suggest that evolution does not mean there is no God, in the same way that a round Earth as opposed to a flat one is not really an argument for there being no God either. Proving evolution to be wrong at the same time does not also mean there is definitely a God, just that the Bible version could have happened after all. Curious to see the author using science and logic to dispell evolution when science and logic led people to consider evolution in the first place. Is it possible to use logic and get two totally different outcomes? Experience within the scientific community during our history has shown that the universe always seems to be more complicated than we thought.
Rating:
Summary: Lawyer Shows the Bankruptcy of Evolution
Review: What if modern molecules-to-man theory had been subject to the same standards of evidence as a typical court proceeding? Evolution would be thrown out of court! Legal expert Phillip Johnson, the author, makes this very clear in this excellent book. Evolutionists may object that standards for scientific evidence are not the same as those for a legal case. In that case, their dogmatic pronouncements of evolution as fact, and denigration of those who disagree, are all the more incorrect and inexcusable.
Rating:
Summary: Hey!
Review: Come, come now, all you 1 star reviewers. Johnson's case is justified by the fact that scientists have not once observed random mutations which have added DNA information to an organism. Not one instance of evolution has ever been observed which has resulted in a new species. Many materialists highlight the classic examples of 'dog breeding', or that finches' beaks have been observed to evolve as a means of proving that natural selection exists - therefore vindicating Darwin's theory. Yet these are merely examples of sifting EXISTING DNA information into different gene pools. The significant point is that NO NEW SPECIES evolve because no new DNA information is created via natural processes. (See Lee. M. Spetner's book 'Not By Chance'). Evolution, as an explanation for new species or life itself, must mean that new and unique information is ADDED to the DNA to create new features and functions: eyes or wings etc. Scientists have not even observed one instance of DNA information being added into the genome. The belief that Darwin's theory properly explains how we got here, ironically requires even more faith than the Pope has in God. The materialist must also hold that inanimate atoms accidentally became aware of themselves, merely as a result of natural selection. Inert bundles of matter accidentally had the capacity to experience friendship, love and intrinsic value. It seems that Philip E. Johnson is more on the ball than many of the one star reviewers below.
Rating:
Summary: "Darwin on Trial": religious book masquerades as science
Review: I found this book in the science section of the local bookstore. After reading it, it quite decidedly belongs in the religion or philosophy stacks. The author must be quite megalomaniacal to seriously believe that he can overthrow over 100 years of intensive scientific study with less than 200 pages of religious and philosophical rhetoric, skewed facts, and a presupposition that the book of genesis is factual. This is not the way science is done! The author (like all creationists) bases his entire set of arguments on the assumption that the book of genesis is factual. They then look for 'facts' to support this point of view, usually ignoring facts that contradict their initial assumption. Science first gathers ALL the available facts and then formulates a picture that best explains the facts. In terms of logic, there simply is no other way to work if you are going to try to explain how the physical world works. This is not scientific dogmatism - it is simply a limitation of reality. Johnson does not do this. His book is a sham; that he is promoting it as a science book bespeaks a terrible dishonesty on his part and the part of his publishers.
Rating:
Summary: And you trust lawyers because...?
Review: I was 'dared' to read this book by my fundamentalist Christian aunt. After reading it, I needed a good pick-me-up after having waded through pages and pages of misrepresentation, faulty logic and rhetoric, so I decided to look at lawyer jokes (since the author is, surprise surprise, not a scientist, but rather a lawer). I thought this one would do the best: Q: What's the strongest evidence against both evolution and creationism? A: Lawyers. Now then, to actually review this book, let me start out by quoting what turns out to be his central thesis (as stated on page 133) "Darwinist evolution is an imaginative story about who we are and where we came from, which is to say it is a creation myth." He further goes on to define "Scientific Naturalism" as the religion which people who ascribe to darwinian forms of evolution 'worship'. He is able to (in his mind) justify these claims after having 'refuted' the evidence for evolution (I found his treatment of artificial selection, fossils such as Archaeopteryx and the Urey-Miller experiment the most preposterous). And while he does not claim to know how life came to be, because he is a Christian who takes his faith seriously, it is pretty obvious why he finds it necessary to repeatedly stress that Darwinism is a belief system (religion) and not an objective way of looking at the universe. The review on the back cover states: "The controversial book that rocked the scientific establishment! Why? It shows that the theory of evolution is based not on fact but on faith - faith in philosophical naturalism. Phillip Johnson argues courageously that there simply is no vast body of empirical data supporting the theory. [...] With the intrigue of a mystery and the gripping detail of a court trial, Johnson takes readers through the evidence with the lawyer's skill he learned as a Berkeley professor of law specializing in the logic of arguments." This is misleading in the extreme. For one thing, I did not find this book to be 'gripping' or full of 'intrigue'. It is a travesty as much as the O.J. Simpson trial was - when you find a lawyer who disagrees with science and you put them in a legal setting where arguments carry more weight than facts, the truth is what suffers. Ironic then that in the epilogue, he concludes "But in the end reality will win". He seems to think that with his 170 pages of text and 50 of research notes that he has single handedly overthrown over a hundred years worth of science. The reality is that he has only further deluded himself.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent. Johnson makes a good case.
Review: That evolution occurs is not in doubt. That it explains everything some Darwinists think it explains is not only very much in doubt but just plain false, as Johnson argues here and in his other books (also recommended). And no, you don't have to be an evangelical Christian, or even a theist of any kind, to appreciate Johnson's arguments. He meets the Darwinists on their own turf and points out the flaws in their own theories/arguments. All in all, a soundly argued book that raises important criticisms of a strange new fundamentalist orthodoxy: Darwinist materialism.
Rating:
Summary: What's the big deal about evolution?
Review: If you're wondering how in the world the Kansas School Board could possibly "de-emphasize" evolution, read this book. It clearly explains how reasonable people can reach the conclusion that evolution is far from the "proven fact" rabid atheists claim it is. Accusations of psuedo-science are groundless because Johnson examines the evolutionist's own evidence and logic. On the other hand, if you're looking for a defense of Biblical creation, you won't find it in this book. Why? Because it's not necessary to prove divine creation to expose the weaknesses of evolution. In fact, Johnson slaps down the weak arguments of creation (pseudo)science and "flood geology" as well. Contrary to the claims of another reviewer, Johnson does not focus on Darwin. He spends much more time on the arguments of evolution's current poster boy, Stephen Jay Gould. His critique of Gould's theory of punctuated equilbrium (i.e. the fossil record shows miniscule evidence of evolution because it was always occurring on the "isolated fringe" - meaning somewhere else) was eye opening. But for me, the most valuable aspect of this book was the exposure of the fallacious arguments evolutionist's must resort to, as well as their intolerance of anyone who dares to criticize them. Whether you believe that God (of some sort) created life or life created itself, read this book to get a better understanding of the debate. (Atheists and new-agers, don't be afraid. This book will not "brainwash" you into believing in the Judeo-Christian God as you can infer from the emotional responses of some of the other reviewers.) I also recommend Stephen C. Meyer's article "The Message in the Microcosm" (available on the web) for a discussion of the challenge presented by the origin of the first life form, and Don Stoner's book, "A New Look at an Old Earth" for an examination of the short vs. long creation days debate (probably not of much interest to Bible haters unless they want to understand some of what they're dismissing without actually studying the Bible themselves). Finally, if you're interested in evidence for the reliability and accuracy of the Bible, read Lee Stobel's "The Case for Christ" and "The Stones Cry Out" by Randall Price.
| 
