Darwinism Defeated?

Rating:
Summary: Johnson takes a beating!
Review: "Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins" is a discussion between the darling of conservative Christianity, Phillip E. Johnson, and evangelical Christian Denis O. Lamoureux, commented by scientists on both side of the issue (Behe, Van Till, Denton, etc.). Although much of the discussion is about whether one can be a Christian and still accept "Darwinism", I can still recommend it to atheists and people who's more concerned about the scientific merit of IDism.

Johnson gets beat up like you wouldn't believe it. First, Lamoureux delivers a 40-page critique of Johnson, his arguments, and his books. He even uses Johnson's own "baloney detector" (stolen from Sagan) to show why Johnson's books are full of BS. Johnson answers by saying that he's only interested in answering the main points, and then presents a rebuttal only 8 pages long, where he manages to completely evade all of Lamoureux's points, and instead talk about how evil atheism is.

Lamoureux notes how disapointed he is with Johnson's behaviour, and then repeats the many points of his that Johnson "forgot" to adress. Johnson's response? To offer a transcript of a radio interview by Dobson, interviewing Johnson on his influence on evangelism!

It is hardly surprising that the IDists, supposed to comment on the debate, all refuse to actually talk about Lamoureux's trashing of Johnson, but instead starts discussing the origin of life and Dembski's filter. As icing on the cake, Denton (author of "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis") appologizes for confusing "Darwinism" with "evolution", then proceeds to talk about biogeography and the molecular data, and how silly it makes "special creation" look.

Rating:
Summary: Johnson takes a beating!
Review: "Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins" is a discussion between the darling of conservative Christianity, Phillip E. Johnson, and evangelical Christian Denis O. Lamoureux, commented by scientists on both side of the issue (Behe, Van Till, Denton, etc.). Although much of the discussion is about whether one can be a Christian and still accept "Darwinism", I can still recommend it to atheists and people who's more concerned about the scientific merit of IDism.

Johnson gets beat up like you wouldn't believe it. First, Lamoureux delivers a 40-page critique of Johnson, his arguments, and his books. He even uses Johnson's own "baloney detector" (stolen from Sagan) to show why Johnson's books are full of BS. Johnson answers by saying that he's only interested in answering the main points, and then presents a rebuttal only 8 pages long, where he manages to completely evade all of Lamoureux's points, and instead talk about how evil atheism is.

Lamoureux notes how disapointed he is with Johnson's behaviour, and then repeats the many points of his that Johnson "forgot" to adress. Johnson's response? To offer a transcript of a radio interview by Dobson, interviewing Johnson on his influence on evangelism!

It is hardly surprising that the IDists, supposed to comment on the debate, all refuse to actually talk about Lamoureux's trashing of Johnson, but instead starts discussing the origin of life and Dembski's filter. As icing on the cake, Denton (author of "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis") appologizes for confusing "Darwinism" with "evolution", then proceeds to talk about biogeography and the molecular data, and how silly it makes "special creation" look.

Rating:
Summary: Johnson Wins!
Review: Call me prejudiced (well, face it, I am), but as far as I'm concerned, Phillip E. Johnson wins this debate going away. It's not surprising that Denis Lamoureux doesn't like Johnson's correction of Emilio (a letter Johnson responds to in "Defeating Darwinism"), since Lamoureux and Emilio are two peas in a pod. Lamoureux describes himself as a Christian (of which, I have no doubt) and a "teleological evolutionist." As nearly as I can tell, this means that, while Lamoureux believes in God and is willing to accept that God had something to do with Evolution (e.g., guiding), he never once acknowledges that God actually _DID_ anything. In his zeal not to be accused of claiming, "Godidit," or appealing to the "God of the Gaps," Lamoureux seem willing to concede the field to the atheistic, naturalistic view. When it comes to details of what happened and why, Lamoureux is solidly in the same boat as noted, outspoken Atheist Richard Dawkins. While Lamoureux seems perfectly willing to concede that God exists, and actually has a purpose and function in this world, on every issue of the evolution debate, Lamoureux takes the Dawkinsian view. What good is it to believe in God, if at the same time one holds firmly to the position that God is either unwilling or unable to actually _DO_ something?

Lamoureux has a bad habit -- one that I've encountered many times in E-debates, of latching onto a single perceived misstatement, and holding on to the cows come home. In his first message, he feels that he catches Johnson in an error about the evolution of whales, and chides him for his choice of reference books. From then to the end of the book, Lamoureux says, "Oh, yeah? Well, what about those whales? Huh? Huh? Couldn't answer me about those whales, could you?"

The method of debate is called, "keep you opponent off balance by harping on a triviality." It doesn't flatter Lamoureux's debating skills. I've seen it too many times.

All that aside, this is an excellent book and well worth the money. It offers an entertaining if predictable insight into the core of the current debate re evolution vs. intelligent design, a topic that is extremely hot right now, thanks to books by the likes of Johnson, Behe, and Dembski, to name a view. One couldn't ask for a better exposition of both sides. And, if I feel that Johnson won the debate, no doubt those who agree with Lamoureux will find his points equally decisive. That's the thing with debates: There's hardly ever a clear winner/loser. Everyone goes away feeling that their side won; few minds are changed. Nevertheless, each side learns a bit, and for those who want to know what's going on in what seemed to be a closed issue, this book is a good way to learn it. If nothing else, it's clear that this is not a subject with good guys and bad guys; with studious and earnest scientists vs. slavering, Neanderthal "fundies." It's a studied debate between intelligent, dedicated, and learned people. That's what makes it so interesting.

Rating:
Summary: One of the Best Brief Intros to the Christian Origins Debate
Review: Denis Lamoureux, an evangelical Christian with three doctorates (theology, biology, and dentistry), is an unapologetic evolutionist. He considers Phillip Johnson (a distinguished member of the law faculty at the University of California, Berkeley) to be "the most important antievolutionist in the world today." Johnson, like Lamoureux, is a devoted Christain. In the first part of this book the two engage in debate. Lamoureux opens. Johnson replies. Lamoureux responds. Johnson gets the last word. The second part of the book includes nine responses to the debate from theologians, scientists, and philosophers (all of whom have Ph.D.s). These include such names as Michael Behe, Michael Denton, Stephen Meyer, and Howard Van Till. Some are disposed toward Johnson and his position which is called "intelligent design theory." Others favor Lamoureux and his "evolutionary creationist perspective." All have their own ideas they wish to toss into the fray. At 174 pages, the book is brief enough to serve as a good introduction to this lively debate between Christians who know that God created, but disagee about how it was done. I am a college professor and recently assigned this book for an undergraduate philosophy of science seminar that I taught on creation and evolution. The students in the course found it very useful, as will all serious students of the Christian origins debates.

Rating:
Summary: Just when you thought it was safe ...
Review: Great subject for a book, but I would have preferred more critical commentary from qualified scientists and educators. This book does a great job in covering the theological debate over evolution, but is short on biogenesis, how life first formed.

Rating:
Summary: Johnson on Trial
Review: I cut my theological teeth on the Origins debate. As an Evangelical and a student of biological science, I soon supped upon a steady diet of Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe. I shared Johnson's outrage at an academic world with atheistic assumptions. I revelled in his out-sciencing the scientists; he was winning back atheistic turf! I fretted over the dismissal of his arguments by Stephen Jay Gould and the rest of the scientific community. I wheeled out Johnson to defeat the lecture notes of my biology professors and former high school teachers. I looked forward to the fall of Darwin.

But I began to read criticism of Johnson. I found counter-arguments that were often as convincing and as rhetorically powerful as Johnson himself. I became increasingly aware of questions that were never addressed by the good guys: If life evolved, is Christianity false? Does the Bible demand what Lamoreux calls "cosmological concordance"? Does Johnson have a plausible Christian alternative origin model makes sense of the fossils? Is it even desirable to have a supernatural scientific methodology?

The answer to all these questions is no. For those would-be Darwin Defeaters, examine Lamoureux. Question your own objectivity. Don't be afraid that any questioning is compromise, or that your whole Christian world will crumble. Contrary to popular belief, history is full of orthodox Christians who supported evolutionary creationism. Lamoreux's arguments resonate deeply with my own conclusions and intellectual development. I didn't compromise. I refused to compromise in the pursuit of truth, and it led me to the ministry.

This is a wonderful book because it finally calls Johnson to some intellectual accountability. Johnson is forceful and rhetorically powerful in his own books. But force and power is not truth. Johnson's failure here is a testimony to that.

Rating:
Summary: Darwinian Myth
Review: One does not need to believe in Creationism in order to oppose Darwinism. Evolution is indeed one of the biggest jokes in scientific history. It is the modern version of ancient myths in explaining the origin of life.

Rating:
Summary: A Fillip for Phillip
Review: When I first reviewed "Darwinism Defeated?" in manuscript the first thought that hit me was, "Why the blazes is Johnson allowing this to be published?" In my opinion, Professor Phillip Johnson takes a beating of the worst kind from fellow Christian, Professor Denis Lamoureux, and then permits Regent College to publish the debate. So you can imagine how completely stunned I was when I later found reviewers actually hoisting Johnson in victory as the undisputed champ of this exchange. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In response to Lamoureux's thirty-eight page critique of Johnson's book "An Easy-To-Understand Guide for Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds," Johnson writes:

"I doubt if the common ancestry thesis is true. However, I do not consider this issue to be of central importance and do not attempt to argue the question for now, because certain crucial work in progress that bears on common ancestry has yet to be published."

Lamoureux candidly replies:

"This is indeed a remarkable statement! Johnson has gained international attention for rejecting biological evolution (or common ancestry), and now he claims that this theory is not "of central importance." In the book that thrust him to the forefront of the modern antievolution movement, Darwin on Trial (1991), seven of the twelve chapters attempt to argue directly against the evidence for common ancestry. Note, too, that in not wanting to deal with the scientific evidence for evolution, Johnson's escape-and-evasion tactic includes an appeal to work "yet to be published." What then is the point in having an evolutionary creationist like me in an exchange of ideas with Johnson if the topic of common ancestry is not central to the discussion?"

Johnson continues his attempt to escape Lamoureux's onslaught by claiming that he does not think it "worthwhile to discuss detailed evidentiary questions with Denis Lamoureux." Can we really blame Lamoureux for being irritated at this? Expecting Christian charity and a zeal for the truth, Lamoureux instead finds himself being denied the opportunity to cross-examine Johnson, the very thing he was asked to do by Johnson in the first place. In his frustration, Lamoureux responds by directing four pointed questions at Johnson concerning his academic authority, scientific beliefs, and poor treatment of fellow Christians. How does Johnson finally respond to these? He doesn't. Instead he excuses himself from the debate with this statement:

"I disavow Denis Lamoureux's characterizations of what I have written."

As if this was not enough of an outrage, in place of a response to Lamoureux's questions Johnson instead offers a radio transcript of a conversation between himself and Dr. James Dobson!

As a young mind attempting to discover the proper relationship between my faith and creation, I have found that Lamoureux has demonstrated beyond doubt that Johnson has little to offer us. In fact, the only thing this soi-disant 'freer of minds' has given us in this exchange is just another fillip, just one more trivial addition to the discussion at large and a deplorable one at that. It is because of this very fact that "Darwinism Defeated?" is and will continue to be a best-seller.