Rating: 
Summary: Read the just the last half
Review: First, Johnson is a good lawyer, his philosophizing is excellent, his scientific skills are lacking.
second, just skip to chapter 4, "science and the modernist theology". then read chapter 4 twice to make up for skipping the first three chapters.He keeps saying "natural selection is not an information enhancer", subtopic title page 58. Of course it isn't, natural selection is a pruning tool, random mutation, in particular, gene duplication is the information enhancing mechanism proposed behind Darwinian evolution. Bad science, perhaps he is using the term NS in a broader sense, including RM; if so he needs to tell us, the distinction of NS-RM is a big one and he surely knows it. That's chapter 2- "information quandry". just skip it. bad science.
Johnson assumes at every turn that the acceptance of the principle of naturalist or materialist methodological necessarily entails the logical acceptance of the corresponding metaphysics.pg89 And to prove his point he lowers the big guns at theistic evolutionists and fires away. on pg 90 he writes "As a rule, theistic modernists do not accept evolution grudgingly, nor do they dispute the Darwinian claim that evolution is undirected( at least as far as scientific evidence can determine). On the contrary they embrace evolution with all its randomness as much for its theological merits as for its scientific standing." Again he misses the big point, accept the science as method, reject the scientism as metaphysics, as an improper extension of method and principles, on Christian grounds. However these two little points aside, he has an excellent illustration in the offensive and defensive teams in evolutionary world view team playing.
But the issue of Gould's NOMA and science yielding up with one hand and removing under that table with the other is a good point. Johnson's point is well taken, that you can afford to yield an empty house to a fallen defended enemy, as long as you retain control of the ground it is on. The second half of the book is fully philosophically, chapter 5 is the secular evolutionary investigation of the human mind brain problem with the result that the mind doesn't exist except as electric pulsing through networks of neurons. Thus he contends eliminating the mind of man, and the mind of the scientists doing the work. This is a variation of my "how can i trust the mind of a monkey" problem.
One question that was solved for me rather late in the book, is what does he propose to replace secular science? The first hint i had at his answer is on page 123 with: " What makes the mind from the brain is not the neurons but the information that coordinates the neurons and uses them (and perhaps other entities as yet unknown) to produce the phenomena of our mental life." He goes on later to introduce the key ID words on information: complex, aperiodic, specified. But other than the example of language: primitive people's do not have primitive languages, the genetic basis of language seems to allow for a wide variety of things to evolve within the linguistic field but stay language, he does not push the idea. However i believe this is a big part of ID and i know we will be hearing more about the information underlying the material world. This appears to be a way to introduce God without using the terms most common to a discussion of religion. The term information is bland and doesnt raise the watchdogs like: personality, being, thought etc, would. But this is the content that Johnson is giving to information; the personal, supernatural, putting into the material world from the supernatural world of the addendum it needs to move from one level to the next. A second question that i had was: why does he assume that methodological naturalism leds to philosophic naturalism? The simply answer is that he makes an assumption of materialism, evolutionism, naturalism, physicalism essential to science. An assumption, presupposition essential to the building of the structure from the very beginnning. His idea of naturalist methodology is that scientists fake it to the rest of us ignorant people, they know that it is materialism all the rest of the way down to the assumptions, but pretend it is methodology to the uninitiated. I am unconvinced. I believe i can use the methodology as a Christian, aware however that i expect the principle to break before it becomes metaphysics. Like Johnson, i believe it breaks on the mind-body problem. From that point, i switch sides, i can no longer walk with the consistent materialist towards philosophic materialism which destroys my mind, my purpose, my reasons for existence. He is welcome to approach and fall off the cliff of nihilism. I wont, I dont. I am a Christian at heart, not secular, not materialist, not naturalist. I believe that i might understand. Somehow the breath of God into Adam, and the image of God that he was created in, involve our minds. To reduce them to material in motion is a logical, social, scientific, disaster. But Johnson, despite the analysis from this point on, does not convince me to change my mind on the principle of naturalist methodology.
Rating: 
Summary: Fits well into Ian Barbour's framework.
Review: From pages 96-98 in _When Science Meets Religion_, by Ian G. Barbour (HarperSanFrancisco, 2000; ISBN 0-06-060381), which I consider to be the best book on its topic I have read: "Phillip Johnson, a law school professor, accepts microevolution (small modifications in existing species) but does not accept macroevolution (the formation of new species). He points out that artificial selection by animal breeders produces great diversity but no new species. The beaks of finches on the isolated Galapagos Islands changed when climate conditions changed, but no new species appeared. Artificial selection of fruit flies has produced forms that do not breed with their ancestors, but it is not clear that they should count as new species. "Johnson is impressed by the paucity of transitional forms in the fossil record. He says that Archaeopteryx, a birdlike creature with reptilian features, is one of the few plausible candidates for a link between species. He grants that fossil records, especially of soft body parts, are inevitably rather fragmentary. If [Stephen] Gould is correct that speciation occurred rapidly in small, isolated populations, transitional fossils would be rare. But Johnson claims that even then we would expect more transitional forms than have been found. He holds that attempts to reconstruct a family tree from apes to humans are particularly speculative and subjective, influenced as much by philosophical preconceptions as by clear evidence. "The sudden appearance in the early Cambrian period (about 570 million years ago) of creatures very unlike anything found in Precambrian strata is particularly puzzling. ...Johnson accepts Gould's concept of punctuated equilibrium, though unlike Gould he thinks that the Cambrian explosion was a product of God's intervention through the communication of new genetic information. "Johnson also argues that random mutations could not have produced the coordinated functioning of many parts that occurs in complex organisms. An effective eye, for example, requires not only the coordination of diverse parts but also the presence of neural and cerebral structures. He replies to [Richard] Dawkins's speculation that webs on the limbs of small tree-climbing animals would have enabled them to glide, leading eventually to wings for flying. Johnson says that such webs would have hindered climbing and food-grasping long before they could have supported flight. He says that Darwinists have elevated chance into an ultimate principle that is inherently anti-theistic. "Scientific critics say that Johnson exaggerates the deficiencies of Darwinian theory. Theories applying to the distant past cannot of course be proved with certainty. But broad theories in science are judged in part by their ability to explain a wide range of data of differing kinds. Scientists compare alternative theories and evaluate their fruitfulness in suggesting further research, but Johnson offers no empirically testable alternative theory. "Theological critics point out that Johnson assumes that theism requires belief that God intervenes in gaps in the scientific account. They suggest that he has not adequately distinguished scientific theories themselves from the philosophical positions of their atheistic interpreters. So he has ended by agreeing with the exponents of evolutionary materialism that one cannot believe in both God and neo-Darwinism." Barbour thus concludes that Phillip Johnson agrees with his opponents, in that Johnson believes evolutionary theory and theism are mutually exclusive and must always be at odds with one another. At the end of the chapter (pp. 117-118), Barbour sums up the possible alternatives explored by these and other authors: "The themes of the present chapter can be summarized as follows. "1. Conflict. The Conflict thesis was represented from opposite sides by evolutionary naturalists and by theistic critics of neo-Darwinism. Their views conflict, yet they both say that a person cannot at the same time accept neo-Darwinism and the God of theism. "2. Independence. The Independence thesis was exemplified in the separation of domains and functions of science and religion in the writings of some biologists, neo-orthodox theologians, and linguistic analysts, and in the sharp distinction other writers have made between primary and secondary causality in evolutionary history. "3. Dialogue. The Dialogue thesis involved proposed conceptual parallels between evolutionary theory and theological doctrines, first in relation to complexity and self-organization, then in the communication of information, and finally in the idea of top-down causality between higher and lower levels. All of these concepts suggest possible ways of talking about God's relation to the world. "4. Integration. The Integration thesis took three forms: evolutionary arguments for design (natural theology), evolutionary models of God (theology of nature), and the use of evolutionary ideas in process philosophy. The arguments presented start respectively from science (as evidence for design), from theology (in the life of a religious community), and from metaphysics (the search for the most general philosophical categories for interpreting diverse kinds of experience). As in previous chapters, I find myself most sympathetic to the Dialogue position and to Integration as it occurs in a theology of nature and in process philosophy." Professor Barbour is professor emeritus of physics and religion at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota, which US News & World Report consistently ranks as one of the top ten national liberal arts colleges in the USA. I found his thoughtful review of Professor Johnson's books on evolution (including this book, _The Wedge of Truth_) to be a welcome breath of fresh air. As Professor Barbour shows in his book, there is ample common ground for committed Christians and competent scientists to explore together. There is no need, nor justification, for the narrow "Fortress Genesis" mentality that so many of the reviewers of Johnson's books tend to show. I believe Johnson and Dawkins are worth reading. However, the evolution/theism question doesn't necessarily require the "all or nothing" answers they both insist upon. For those of us who seriously seek credible answers, I think _The Wedge of Truth_ is most useful when placed within the spectrum of responses (Conflict-Independence-Dialogue-Integration) Professor Barbour has outlined.
Rating:
Summary: Critics of this book are merely threatened by doubt
Review: I am not sure what I enjoyed more about this excellent work: the probing questions and illumination of the gaps in logic naturalists have, or to see those gaps displayed for all to see in the negative reviews here. One note I always find interesting, the critics are always "a reader" and likely the same person posting multiple reviews. This book is simply the result of someone asking logical questions, to which naturalists have no answers. To a true scientist questions are not threatening, even if loaded, because science is supposedly an objective search for truth. What this book demonstrates clearly, with the help of the critical reviews here, is that many scientists are close-minded fanatics of a naturalistic worldview; and are in fact more narrow in their beliefs than those they disagree with. Who but a religious fundamentalist (in this case the religion of science) would run from questions of logic and challenges to their narrow way of thinking about life? Enjoy this book, it simply asks challenging and probing questions that make naturalists and narrow minded psuedo-scientists feel threatened and doubting their convictions. The fact that these smug arrogent people react with such bitterness to mere questions and challenges does more to illuminate the flaws in their worldview than all the questions Johnson can ask. A well done book, and a fascinating look at logic for free-thinkers.
Rating: 
Summary: When you can't fight the science, you introduce the rhetoric
Review: I hate to pick on lawyers, but any discussion of Johnson and his debate tactics will inevitably turn on his ability to spin a conversation with rhetoric. Johnson has no science to back up creationism (intelligent design), or to knock down the theory of evolution - he pretty much admits that. What he does instead is ignore the facts and focus on 'naturalism' as an affront to his particular brand of Christianity. He claims the martyr mantle in the face of 'attacks' and 'ridicule' by the so-called materialists. I can sympathize with him there, but I can also sympathize with the scientists and science philosophers who have grown weary of his half-truths, twisted logic, and willful ignorance, and have resorted to sarcasm and disdain. In a sense, he's like the village idiot, or its modern equivalent, the sandwich-board preacher, who spends his day shouting on street corners about Ross Perot and alien conspiracies. You can't shut him up, because it his right to rant, and you can't argue with him, because he won't consider your arguments. In the end, you can only pity him and pray that people don't take him seriously.
Rating: 
Summary: When will the truth be acknowledged?
Review: I have just finished reading this book and also attending one of Dr. Johnson's lectures. Like many other people I am tired of being force fed the orthodox evolutionary theories as indisputable "fact". I am also tired of the vicious censorship and character assassination that typifies the response of the science establishment to any criticism of their "positions of faith" regarding Darwinism, evolution and atheism. You can usually tell the confidence a group has in their postion on a subject by the stridency with which they reply to criticism. The stridency of the establishment's response to Dr. Johnson and others in the "design" movement should give their supporters pause to wonder that if the establishement is as comfortable with their position and "science", why are they responding as they are? If the critics are wrong, why the need to destroy them personally? The simple answer (and correct) is that both are postions on this subject are postions of faith, not of science. Dr. Johnson correctly points out in his book that science supports the design theory and that the evolutionary establishment is simply defending their faith - not logic and not science. The pendulum is beginning to swing back and it terrifies the powerbrokers of the evolutionary establishment. If you want a fair, thought provoking analysis on this subject, read this book. If you prefer being told what to believe, then continue to keep you head in the sand and watch MTV.
Rating:
Summary: An observation looking at these reviews
Review: I have not read this book, but I have looked at all reviews of this book online and made a conclusion that both Christians and non-Christians should keep in mind. For Christians, it sounds to me like this would be a great book to read. Most Christians here are for it, and it sounds like this book gives great information for those who are skeptical of Darwinism. In fact, I recently heard a rumor from a friend that Darwin, before he died, denounced his naturalistic views. (I'm not sure if this is fact, so don't quote me on that.) However, it does sound like the book is slanted toward Christians. I do not think this is bad as I am a Christian, but keep this in mind. It sounds like this reader does forget to wonder whether or not other gods are responsible for Creationism or anything similar, leaving a hole for skeptics to attack. A lot of skeptics have a problem with this, so be aware of this criticism if you get this book so that you may read this intelligently, at least. As for non-Christians, however, I would like to remind them that the reason Johnson does not mention the possibility of another god is because the Intelligent Design he is promoting is evidenced by Genesis 1. While you may not believe that Genesis is true, it is yet still evidence that the God of the Bible may truly be God -- the book, at least as I read it, tries to prove that elements, if not all elements, of Genesis 1 are correct and are for real. Be open to what this book has to say. Be humble enough to wonder if Christians may actually be right, at least. And as a reassurance, I struggle with the implications of Creationism sometimes myself. I hope this may help Christians and non-Christians out in their search for truth with the help of this book.
Rating:
Summary: Meant for the Church.
Review: I've listened to lots of debates about macroevolution in the past several years. I've read lots of books on the subject. From all that I've seen and heard, it places me in complete agreement with what Phillip Johnson has to say in THE WEDGE OF TRUTH. He points out things (ideas, concepts, etc) that the average person has probably never seriously thought about before and how those who follow a naturalistic faith use these things to exchange logic and true reason for rationality. THE WEDGE OF TRUTH is a book written for Christians. It illustrates to the reader some of the history of how things got the way they are and the flaws in logic that are beginning to cause the foundations of naturalism to quake and fall apart. Johnson experesses in the book that one of the purposes of the book is to help others become a wedge in the cracks of naturalistic theories so that others can come along later and use that wedge to break apart the false ideas and let truth shine forth. The book deals with such things as the difference between reason and rationalization and how rationalization is killing modern science, the problem of there being no information-enhancing process in naturalism, why naturalist fear the theory of intelligent design, the difference between mind and matter, and what can be done to reunite science and religion. I found the book very interesting and helpful. I think it's a book that any educated Christian who has at least some idea about the problems of naturalism would benefit from reading, especially if that person doesn't have very much scientific training. As a side note, I normally don't directly respond to other reviews that people have posted here, but this is a time when I will make an exception. After reading several of the reviews posted here, it is clear that a lot of people who have written reviews for this book have not read it. The points they make and the crticisms they have are the very things Johnson discusses in THE WEDGE OF TRUTH and had the actually read the book, they would have realized that. Unfortunately, they haven't and probably won't. I hope that if you choose to read this book that you will, first, actually read it and second, read it with an open mind.
Rating:
Summary: This reviewer exposes the "Wizard of Wedges" for what he is.
Review: I've read most of the reviews posted here. This one hits the mark and splits the apple, clearly exposing Phillip Johnson's intellectual bankruptcy. /*
The Wedge Of Lies and Deceit Pertaining to Science, April 17, 2002 [Top 500 Reviewer] Reviewer: John Kwok from New York, NY The WEDGE OF TRUTH, Phillip Johnson's latest attack on evolutionary biology - and by implication, therefore, all of science - is replete with factual omissions, distortions and sarcastic commentary on "naturalistic" science which I've unfortunately read elsewhere, most notably in DARWIN ON TRIAL. Once more Johnson deplores the fact that science refuses to consider supernatural explanations as part of its very essence; he refuses to acknowledge that scientists have good, sound reasons based on logic and rationalism to exclude the possibility of supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. Johnson argues that those who subscribe to "naturalistic" Darwinian evolutionary biology must inevitably be opposed to religion; however, I know of at least two prominent biologists who see no conflict between their own devout personal beliefs in a Judeo-Christian GOD and their research in biology. Johnson fails to acknowledge the signficance of important evolutionary biological research by scientists such as Peter and Rosemary Grant; once more he dismisses the significance of their research on Galapagos finches, which does demonstrate convincingly the importance of natural selection as the primary mechanism behind microevolution. (Indeed, he fails to acknowledge important recent research cited by Kenneth Miller in Miller's book FINDING DARWIN'S GOD which demonstrates recent speciation via microevolution.) Phillip Johnson claims that evolution isn't a natural law of science such as gravity. However, I wonder whether his ill-conceived logic might also account for other natural laws like gravity and the speed of light. Couldn't one say that these are due to an "Intelligent Design" devised by some omniscient CREATOR? Surely sciences such as physics, chemistry and geology ought to fall under the rubric of "Intelligent Design" theories, allowing for the possibility of supernatural events. Yet would these be considered science still, not metaphysics? Surely Johnson's call for "theistic science" only proves his lack of understanding - or rather his unwillingness to understand - how and why science must remain a rational enterprise devoid of supernatural explanations.
*/
Rating:
Summary: One side of an important conversation.
Review: Johnson writes in a lively style, and expresses one point of view on the creation-evolution question fairly competently. For a concise, clear discussion of another important point of view, I recommend that you read another book, which greatly illuminates the following question from an earlier reviewer of this book: "Can the mechanism Darwinism describes actually create information from raw, inanimate materials (e.g., create cells with DNA and the ability to reproduce, which are necessary for natural selection even to start)?" In his slim volume "Origins of Life", theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate Freeman Dyson (best known for his contributions to quantum physics) carefully outlines the hypothesis that self-reproducing cells (based on protein chemistry) were around for some time before the first self-replicating molecules (based on nucleic acid [DNA and RNA] chemistry) developed--as molecular parasites inside the reproducing cells, initially. Just as mitochondria and chloroplasts are now thought to have begun as foreign invaders of cells, then later became essential parts in some of those cells' descendents, Professor Dyson asks, could not DNA molecules also have started as parasites, then evolved to be partners with their hosts? This implies that a fairly crude--but effective--form of evolution by survival of the fittest all-protein cells could have operated before it was replaced by the more precise mechanisms of the nucleic acids. I find Professor Dyson's question intriguing, and well worth the effort needed to investigate it. I hope you will, too.
Rating:
Summary: Rich...Absorbing...Penetrating..Lucid..Compelling..Essential
Review: Just today I've completed Professor Phillip E. Johnson's latest book, "The Wedge of Truth". It is without a doubt the most insightful, persuasive work I've read in five years. Pay close attention to the important, probing questions asked by Professor Johnson that the contemporary Darwinian elite are afraid to tackle. And why are they afraid to give an answer? It is becoming increasingly apparent that an honest response will expose their presuppositions as nothing but fracturing dogmatism. And why is contemporary Darwinism a fracturing paradigm? Because when these same scientific naturalists do attempt to make a response to this sharp UC Berkeley professor, pay even closer attention to what they say in their obvious fumbling. Do they provide answers to his questions? Do they answer with well-reasoned lucidity or do they spit out ad hominem attacks at those who don't buy into their philosophy? Decide for yourself!!! I was surprised to find that there is a great deal of intellectual dishonesty within our scientific academies, as this Darwinian elite always substitutes dogmatic "spin" for a complete lack of a proper answer. It is appalling and intellectually insulting to me that the scientific academic community expects us to digest this notion that cyclical variation within a stable species warrants a mechanism of creating plants and animals--especially when these scientists are at such a loss to answer the tough questions that challenge it. You can't defend science by ruling important issues off the table! Who is willing to blindly place his or her faith in anything lacking solid evidence? Oddly enough, (thanks to this eye-opening book), it is becoming increasingly apparent that those walking around in the dark are the ones who blindly cling to Darwinism. After reading this book, I ask those who are firmly entrenched in the Darwinist camp, "Can you answer Professor Johnson's legitimate questions that gravely challenge your theory?" If you expect me to buy into this concept that has made little (if any) progress in the last 150 years, then you had better be prepared to defend your position. I mean, isn't this essentially what the scientific method is all about? I find it amusing that some reviewers (who likely haven't even opened a page of this book) attack Professor Johnson's qualifications to address this subject when the distinguished agnostic biologist Michael Denton has made the following comment concerning Johnson's groundbreaking book DARWIN ON TRIAL, "Unquestionably the best critique of Darwinism I have ever read". But aren't ad hominem attacks to be expected when no other substantive response can be provided! Indeed, the axe has already struck the dead wood. Phillip Johnson asks a series of penetrating questions in this book. Unless these dogmatists can somehow scrape up even a few well reasoned answers, it is only a matter of time before the thin edge of the wedge completely splits the Darwinian paradigm apart. Don't miss reading this book--you will find it revolutionary! It is so good that I have purchased an additional 2 copies as gifts to friends. I see it as one of the most important works of our time.
|
