Rating: 
Summary: A Crictical Look at Neo-Darwinism
Review: A must-read for anyone tracking the debate. Johnson has thrust a stick into the proverbial hornet's nest by taking a critical look at the logical structure of the argument for evolution posited by what he calls the "scientific priesthood." Johnson openly reveals his position as a "philosophical theist and a Christian" He remarks that his "purpose is to examine the scientific evidence on its own terms being careful to distinguish the evidence itself from any religious or philosophical bias that might distort our interpretation of that evidence" Does he succeed? Not entirely, but the objectivity that both sides demand of the other in this debate seems to be nothing less than capitulation anyway, so the issue is moot. Johnson does show that when the actual evidence is considered numerous failures of logic occur in the scientific community's assessment that evolution is an "established fact." Johnson charges that this has led the scientific establishment to be just as guilty as the creationists of promoting their own brand of "fundamentalism" when there is simply a lack of evidence to warrant such one-sided, close-minded finality on the question of origins. Scientists have in effect, Johnson argues, broken their own scientific creedo of objective analysis by allowing themselves a heavy emotional investment in a theory that at best seems to have great explanative powers if little empirical support for want of what they say is a better alternative. This is the book that sent Stephen Jay Gould infuriated to his word-processor for a response, and has prompted many a hornet to protect the hive with less than courteous remarks. It is sure that many more diatribes, and ad hominem attacks will be flung across the table at those who would "dare" to question the "fact" of evolution as Johnson has in this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Title should be "Science on Trial"
Review: Johnson uses Darwin as a stand-in for all scientists. Johnson's quibble isn't with Darwin so much as with the scientific method, and he wants to re-define "science" into something it most definitely is not. Yes, Darwin was wrong on some subjects. And he knew he didn't have the final answers on others. This is not news. This is how science works. This does not invalidate evolution, a very simple and straightforward theory based on abundant evidence that is continuously being expanded, enriched, and supported--not contradicted--by additional discoveries in all the sciences. Yet the darlings of the neocreationists and anti-evolutionists like Johnson and Behe continue to try to poke holes in evolution while offering nothing to replace it. They are without original ideas. The holes they poke in evolutionary theory are quickly mended because there are very sound reasons why biologists--and geologists, and astronomers, and physicists, all of whom would have to be wrong if creationism is true--believe in the truth of evolution and accept it as the source of life's diversity. Show me a fossil dinosaur with human bones in its ribcage and maybe I'll start having my doubts. Meanwhile, the scientific research of the anti-evolutionists--or rather lack thereof--is insufficient to support even their most modest claims. But they seem to think that the failure of scientists to disprove their claims validates them. Johnson et al. do not seem to understand that science simply cannot address that which cannot be tested. From here he makes the leap that science must therefore be atheistic (excuse me, "naturalistic"). Yes, some scientists are atheists. Others are not. It's a specious argument to suggest that science or scientists demand there be no God. And yet I wonder how carefully the creationists have examined their own beliefs, their own dogma, their own "Origin of Species"--the Bible? Do we really replace evolution with the Bible? Anybody who believes the Bible to be literally true has obviously never read the book. It is full of demonstrable errors, egregious self-contradictions, and a portrayal of a God who is both malevolent and deceitful.
Rating:
Summary: The snake of Darwinistic theory eats itself by the tail.
Review: The bottom line on Darwinism, and the non-Darwinian spinoffs we feed into our educational system, seems to be that it is ok to represent an arbitrary religious construct as scientific fact.Darwin is forced over and over to humiliate himself verbally and in writing, conceding that the fossil record does not support his theories, vainly hoping that "new discoveries" will vindicate, which they do not. We didn't need this book to show off this bit of natural history. The Evolution fantasy vainly contiunues, masking over the impossibly short time periods claimed to have evolved higher order organ technology. Again, Darwin is forced to identify his notions in this area as so much mental mastubatory spunk. Once again, history has tabulated this information for all to see without the benefit of this book. The most pathetic recounts were of assembled "scientists", heaving up great pablum-esque hypotheses in the exclusive company of other, with the sole purpose of avoiding the obvious conclusion that there *is* room for a creator. This book does open a door on this despotic "scientific" practice. It all smacks of a bunch of hillbillies at a snake-handling convention, swilling strychnine and congratulating each other on not getting fatally bit. The author's observation appears to hold true. Releasing this kind of mental fart gas into the more "open" public educational system has caused it to lose a good deal of its eau de savor, under closer scrutiny. Perhaps high school is evolving into our higher education system after all, with academia following rather the second law of thermodynamics. Gawd, what a stench.
Rating: 
Summary: Microevolution vs Macroevolution
Review: For the majority of Christians, it is obvious that microevolution exists. This is what has been seen in Finches, dog breedng, etc. Unfortunately, many evolutionist believe this to prove that man was created by evolution. Macro evolution is what they are trying to prove, but they are using examples that prove micro evolution. Just because I may gain or lose my little toe in a million years doesn't mean that, from nothing, random chance can create the sophisticated systems that the human body possesses. In a way, Evolution is just as much a "religion" as Christianity. The reason I say this is that both have to be taken upon by faith. I don't believe it will be possible to prove one way or the other. Phillip Johnson is not trying to prove that God exists and that he created man. He is pointing out the flaws that scientists are making when they try to prove that Evolution is what created man.
Rating:
Summary: The Religion of Science
Review: For this reader, the important quality of this book is not its critical analysis of the various theories naturalistic evolution. Rather, it is important because it illustrates that believers of a system - whether atheistic or theistic, scientific or metaphysical - tend to embrace that belief with a defiance and close-mindedness that places the actual search for truth as a low priority. I personally have discussed this topic with fundamentalist Christians as well as staunch scientific atheists and find little difference between them, except that they are able quote from different books, and don't dress at all alike. The one thing they seem to have most in common is that they have little understanding of - or tolerance for - the other's point of view. In a complex universe where so little is understood, such arrogance is folly.
Rating:
Summary: Unbiased
Review: All of these reviews calling this book unbiased are a laugh. There is nothing objective in Philip Johnson's approach. Just because he doesn't make his religious beliefs explicit doesn't mean they are not completely transparent in the text.
Rating:
Summary: Have you actually read this book?
Review: All the reviews that I have seen that give this book one or two stars are making the same painful mistake. They argue that Phillip Johnson is arguing _for_ creationism, and _against_ science. Unfortunately, this is most assuredly not the problem with the book. Indeed Johnson makes it excruciatingly clear that his complaint with evolution is not that the theory is untrue, or not possible. His point is that some of the vast claims of scientists are totally unscientific extrapolations. And here, it must be conceded, he has a point. Imagine examining the following statements in a college logic class: (a) 'since science has never gained any evidence supporting the existence of a god then no gods must exist,' or (b) 'since modification with descent has overwhelmingly been shown to occur within a given population (moths/tree color; insects/DDT; bacteria/antibiotics; dogs, plants and goldfish/selective breeding; etc.), it must also be true in its ultimate sense; that is every living thing must have evolved from a common unicellular ancestor, which in turn must have evolved from soup.' The conclusions of these arguments are not only totally unsupported, they are indeed unsupportable. They also intrude undeniably on metaphysics. In the end, Johnson's plea is for actual science to step in. He leaves unresolved the question of whether evolution, as a theory, is true. I give the book five stars.
Rating:
Summary: Completely Wrong in its Fundamental Argument
Review: I'm amazed at the pro-Johnson reviewers here who have complained of negative reivews that allegedly ignore Johnson's arguments. In fact, previous reviews have dealt with many of Johnson's central points, in particular his main argument on the subject of naturalism. To be scientific, a claim must be testable--it must be possible to demonstrate with evidence that the proposition is false. Science must, then, by its nature, confine itself to studying claims which can be tested with evidence. Claims that attribute some event to a supernatural force of some kind, including all "God did it" claims, are inherently untestable, and therefore, scientists properly do not examine such claims. Johnson simply does not understand the centrality of testability to science. Therefore, when he observes scientists ruling out supernatural explanations, he wrongly attributes their action to a quasi-religious bias in favor of "naturalism." This fundamental failure to understand science invalidates Johnson's arguments.
Rating:
Summary: Essential Reading in the Debate on Evolution
Review: Do not miss this or any of the other books by Prof. Johnson! The debate has been won -- Neo-darwinism has failed! My evidence is the new book by Paul Davies The Fifth Miracle. In this book Davies admits that the laws of nature as we currently understand them are incapable of having produced life. He then follows Crick into the panspermia nonsense. Johnson in his books and Michael Behe in Evolutions'Black Box, have pounded the final nails into the coffin of Darwin's failed theory.
Rating:
Summary: More of the same intelligent design nonsense...
Review: Johnson sounds better than most intelligent design creationists, I'll admit, but at heart his arguments are the same that have been trotted out for years. I suggest reading Robert Pennock's new book _Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism_ for a devastating critique of Johnson's position.
| 
