Rating: 
Summary: This is why OJ got off
Review: An absolutely blistering indictment on the entire foundation of the legal industry, and the appalling abuses we can commit with language. I'm reminded of something the great Dr Pauli (of Pauli exclusion principle fame) once said about a paper he was asked to review: "This isn't right. It isn't even wrong."
Rating: 
Summary: Critique of Darwinism from a scientific standpoint
Review: As a theological student published in genetic, endocrine and clinical research, I was very interested in this book. My background was that of pre-medical education and then clinical and basic research. I took a course in evolution which brought up many questions in my faith which were not resolved for some time. The book was of great interest to me, someone well versed in both sides of this argument.
Johnson is one of the few Christian writers who takes on evolution (more specifically Darwinism) from a scientific standpoint, rather than from a theological standpoint. Most unbelievers disregard much of the theological arguments, so a critique from this standpoint was necessary to challenge evolution, if progress was going to be made for Creationism. Despite having a deep feeling regarding one side of the argument, Johnson does a great job of remaining unbiased in his arguments. He is also a lawyer, but he seeks guidance from many who are learned on the subject to check his material. This makes his argument a sound one. He steps through the different ideas of Darwinism from Natural Selection, which he of course admits is observed in nature. Then he goes on to discuss how this idea is expounded upon to create the theory of evolution without credible data. He says that scientists have neglected their normal methods of research to attempt to prove evolution rather than disprove it, which is the standard in science. Johnson makes a great argument for the illogicality of evolution, but admits science has no alternative hypothesis, so it persists.
This book is a must for anyone in the field of biology or theology. It thoroughly discusses the obstacles and holes in the evidence.
There are some issues with the book:
Johnson's reference system is poor at best. He does not notate each find or bit of evidence, which would help in checking up on his work.
He does mention Lamarck and the fact that evolution often speaks as Lamarck did despite science's discreditation of his theories.
Johnson also spends very little time on the fact that there would be many variations in the basic materials of life if everything had occurred randomly. Meaning, there would be more than 5 nucleotides and 20 amino acids found in organisms if they had evolved randomly.
Overall, the book does a very good job of referencing the writings of the preeminent scholars of evolution (mostly Gould and Darwin) and makes a superb case against Darwinism.
Rating:
Summary: A dose of common sense that can't be refuted
Review: Darwin on Trial was one of the pivotal books that launched the "Intelligent Design" movement. In truth, the book isn't brilliant - it doesn't need to be. Darwinism is fundamentally flawed, and simple logic (with a healthy dose of facts) shows how weak the theory really is.Johnson's major contribution is demonstrating how Darwinism isn't a scientific theory, but a clever rhetorical trick that dresses up religious notions as science. If you think about it, Darwinism is essentially meaningless. Darwin says, "The species that survive are the species that are best fitted to survive." That statement is objectively meaningless. But philosophers have dressed up this statement in fancy verbage to make it sound like a meaningful proposition when it reality it tells us nothing about how life developed or why. Johnson is not a Creationist (i.e., he doesn't believe that the world is 6,000 years or that dinosaurs roamed the decks of Noah's ark). The fact that establishment scientists feel the need to portray him as a Creationist shows how strong Johnson's argument really is. This is an excellent starting point for deeper explorations into ID.
Rating: 
Summary: Mostly Good
Review: I have generally stayed away from getting engrossed in the always contentious creation/evolution debate - mainly because I'm neither a scientist nor a philosopher and I recognize the limitations these facts have on my ability to responsibly appraise the legitimacy of each side's arguments. As such, I am not well versed in the explosion of literature in this area emanating from both sides, and my critique of this book should be understood with this in mind. As an evangelical committed to Biblical authority, naturalistic evolution is untenable because its metaphysical imperatives are hostile to Christianity. I think Johnson does a good job of demonstrating this. Further, evolutionary scientists are not merely empirical scientists with no interest in epistemology and metaphysics, but quite the contrary, are necessarily expanding Darwinian naturalism into the realm of philosophy and metaphysics. Darwinian science without darwinian metaphysics is no threat to anything - it is the metaphysics of Darwinism that give naturalistic evolution its teeth - and both Darwinists and theists know it. Johnson spends a good bit of time exploring the metaphysical presuppositions (unproven presuppositions) that undergird the entire evolutionist enterprise. In many ways, I think Johnson succeeds in demonstrating that evolutionism is a comprehensive worldview in every sense, opining upon matters of metaphysics and origins that take naturalistic evolution far beyond the realm of empirical science. Johnson also attempts to critique evolution empirically, by discussing the fossil record and biology. Johnson's conclusion in these areas is that support for evolution is sparse at best in the very kind of empirical way that respectable science is supposedly based on. No doubt, debate over the empirical evidence hasn't stopped with Johnson's appraisal of it in this book, but I do think his appraisal generally succeeds in making the much trumpeted 'fact' of evolution quite surmountable. Johnson also discusses philosophy of science and evolutionism's desire to expand its worldview into public education, natural history museums, and all relevant areas of public thought. This discussion only confirms that what may (arguably) have started as a mainly scientific approach to origins and species has mushroomed into a full scale effort to take the Gospel of Evolution to the masses in non-scientific ways and into non-scientific areas. I'm giving the book 4 stars, probably because I'm a bit prejudiced. I agree with others that Johnson's speciality as a lawyer, to some degree, handicaps his ability to speak thoroughly persuasively on scientific matters. I do think Johnson does exhibit a pretty good command of the scientific issues that are discussed here, but just as I'm skeptical of evolutionary scientists switching hats and becoming pseudo-metaphysicists and philosophers with little to no philosophical training, I am likewise skeptical of lawyers acting like scientists. Having said this, Johnson's main purpose in here is to address issues that are more in his area of expertise - logical argumentation and reasoning, rather than assessing empirical science. I think this is mostly a strength of the book, though like his evolutionary counterparts, I do think Johnson falls prey to the idea that knowledge is objective in an autonomous human reasoning kind of way. This, I believe, is an unbiblical notion. Evolutionary ways of explaining the universe did not begin with Darwin - the pre-Socratics tried to explain the universe in ways that prefigure evolutionism as well. Darwin's main achievement was that he laid down the basics of a comprehensive worldview system that allowed people something else other than the Bible to believe in when it came to explaining the universe and origins. I think the result of reading Johnson's book is that the appeal of Darwinism is not that it is a worldview bolstered by solid arguments and empirical evidences (because it definitely isn't), but that it is the place to run for those who reject the Bible. It is hoped by this reader that the evolution's ever more precarious perch atop scientific orthodoxy might eventually give way to a more intellectually respectable empirical and even rationalistic approach to the investigation of origins.
Rating:
Summary: This is why OJ got off
Review: I read Johnson's book Defeating Darwinism about 3 years ago, and was not impressed with his arguments against evolution in that book. Yet, after reading this book I have become a fan of Johnson's critiques of Darwinian theory. As a law student myself, I have come to appreciate Johnson's literary and argumentative techniques because he writes from the perspective not of a scientist, but as a lawyer examining the evidence to see which case is the strongest. Some criticize Johnson for not being a scientist, and in fact that was the criticism I levied against him three years ago, but as a lawyer Johnson is able to do something no scientist can do; Namely, examine the facts as they are and root out assumptions that individuals hold which help them interpret the facts in a certain way. This is exactly what Johnson does in this book as he examines the evidence for and against Darwinian evolution. Johnson correctly notes that a vast majority of the scientific establishment have embraced the philosophical system of materialistic atheism as the logical partner of Darwinian theory. Therefore, there is no purpose to the universe's existence or any purpose for mankind's existence but everything is the result of law and chance. This type of worldview is antithetical to a religious worldview and therefore religion and science often do clash because these two philosophical systems are at odds with each other. In addition, Johnson notes that the theory of evolution is slowly collapsing under the weight of new scientific discoveries. Sure, in Darwin's day the lack of fossil of evidence wasn't perceived as a problem because people believed the fossils were yet undiscovered, but the fossil discoveries of the last 150 years have only reinforced the fact the Darwinian evolution contradicts the fossil evidence. Yes, in Darwin's day the cell was believed to be a simple structure consisiting mainly of water and a nucleus, but now molecular biology has discovered that the cell is extremely complex, more complex than any man made machine, and believing such a structure could be created by random, pointless processes is absurd. These are just a few of the ideas brought forth in this book and although Johnson doesn't do much to damage the scientific validity of evolution he servely damages the philosophical foundations of evolution and that is damage enough.
Rating:
Summary: Evolution = Ptolemaic Astronomy
Review: I was astonished by Johnson's fine book when it first appeared. Unsurprisingly, and as catalogued in these reviews, the typical response of evolutionists is to resort to various logical fallacies--a favorite being name-calling. It appears that very few of Johnson's critics have actually read his book. One brief story: After reading Darwin on Trial when it was first released, I asked a very good (macro-evolutionist) friend of mine in Berkeley about his rebuttal to Johnson's arguments. To my surprise, his response was, shall we say, inadequate. Yet, my friend's passion for macro-evolution was undiminished. Graciously, Johnson (with whom I spoke once previously on the telephone) agreed to meet in his (Johnson's Berkeley campus office) for an informal discussion/debate about the subject of Darwin on Trial. Initially, my friend went along with the idea, but shortly before the scheduled meeting he backed out without explanation. I never pressed him; after all he was my friend.
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.
Rating:
Summary: Very Interesting
Review: In 1991, "Darwin on Trial" staked out new ground against Darwinism. Today some critics accuse it of outdated science. Still, every scientific claim awaits being outdated from its inception. Endless scientific points and counterpoints are the predictable future once the essential unfalsifiability of both young-Earth scientific creationism and Darwinism were noticed. Still, critics attacking Professor Johnson's science miss or ignore his central philosophical achievement: the radical unmasking of Darwinism's Achilles heel, atheistic naturalism. Science rightly embraces methodological naturalism. That is, observable natural phenomena demand natural explanations. Failure to attempt to propose theories and causes that remain within the boundaries of the natural universe abandons the very essence of physical science. Still, to employ an absolute presumption that only natural causes can possibly explain all phenomena embraces, not methodological, but metaphysical naturalism. In the case of Darwinism, an a priori commitment to atheistic materialism precludes all possibility of supernatural intervention in the cosmos. This constitutes philosophy, not science. Once committed to this philosophical posture, all changes in nature must flow from natural causes. If natural causes alone can account for the appearance of all new species, then naturalistic evolution becomes necessary. No matter the objection raised against evolution, the naturalistic presumption demands a naturalistic explanation. "Good science" demands debunking of all opposing evidence, and insistence that complete evolutionary explanations have already been given - or are on the way shortly. Hence, the uproar against Johnson for daring to point out this unstated philosophical presumption in Darwinism's smug claims, which masquerade in the guise of "pure natural science." In "Darwin on Trial," Johnson exposes the fallacy and implications of metaphysical naturalism, thereby revealing Darwinism's logical weaknesses with devastating force. The book best speaks for itself, provided we realize that Darwinians will always seek to regain lost ground by challenging the recency of Johnson's scientific data and examples. Essentially, they fail to escape Johnson's relentless philosophical and logical attack upon their exaggerated claims of certitude. Johnson tells us that he is "...not concerned in this book with addressing any conflicts between the Biblical accounts and the scientific evidence." (1991 hardbound edition, p. 14) Still, Darwinism has undermined Biblical belief, especially the Genesis account of Adam and Eve's origin. In my book, "Origin of the Human Species" (Sapientia Press: 2003), I demonstrate the compatibility of sound natural science with authentic Scriptural interpretation, including the historicity of Adam and Eve - and without recourse to young-Earth creationism. I cite "Darwin on Trial" to support my own exploration of evolution science's epistemological limitations, while showing that even should human origins intertwine with biological evolution in some mysterious manner, Scripture's literal historical sense need not be violated. In "Darwin on Trial," Phillip Johnson has done an excellent job of revealing Darwinism's philosophically objectionable foundations as well as pointing to empirical data that appear to oppose Darwinian theory. "Darwin on Trial" should be a cornerstone of every informed debate about evolution.
Rating:
Summary: Two Thumbs Up!
Review: Over the past several years I have read a number of books both for and against the theory of evolution. One of these books was in fact Darwin's original thesis, "The Origin of Species." Some of the others have been books that try to defeat Darwin by presenting a myriad of counter evidence which the author believes is proof that Darwin's theory is false. However, they usually end up being just as guilty as Darwin in making untested assumptions and sweeping generalizations. The end result is that these books aren't very convincing unless you read them having a completely bias view to begin with. Phillip Johnson's book is entirely different. He makes the argument that simply showing tidbits of evidence which might be compatible with an evolving earth isn't the same as proving the fundamental tenants of the theory. Providing these tidbits of information is exactly what scientific naturalists have been doing all along. His purpose isn't to prove creationism to be true, but rather to show how flawed the "evidence" for evolution really is. Whatever your personal beliefs may be, you will view the lack of evidence for evolution in a different light after you read "Darwin on Trial." I give Johnson two thumbs up!
Rating:
Summary: Neo-Darwinism at the Bar of Reason
Review: Phillip Johnson has taken Darwinian evolution to court and the verdict rendered is guilty. He argues incisively that Darwinism cannot be verified by the empirical evidence. Therefore the very foundation of Darwinism is not rooted in science but a philosophy of naturalism. It is this worldview of naturalism, which colors all the evidence and provides the shaky foundation for Darwinian science. Darwinists have a healthy corner on the market of science by being the very ones who define science in their favor. They argue that the most basic characteristic of science is reliance upon naturalistic explanations. Any appeal to the supernatural or transcendent by definition is excluded. Any form of theistic creationism is therefore excluded. Such a theory of theistic creation is viewed by scientists as non-science and by many as non-sense. The deck has been clearly stacked against theism. Johnson's main task in Darwin on Trial is to show that the conflict is not between science and non-science, but between two competing worldviews. There is naturalism, which by definition excludes all forms of the divine, and there is the worldview of theism that argues for a God who created all things. It is this worldview clash, which is at the heart of the evolution debate. Johnson surveys the scientific evidence offered for evolution and finds it wanting. He deals with natural selection, mutation theory, and the fossil record, the vertebrate sequence, molecular evidence and prebiological evolution. He then examines the philosophical underpinnings of evolutionary theory and argues that evolution as fact is hinged upon philosophy and not science. It is a philosophical theory, which uses science only for minimal confirmation. The philosophical worldview of evolution colors all the empirical "confirming" evidence, which is used to verify the "truth" of Darwinism. The importance of Darwin on Trial is to show that the debate over evolution is a worldview clash. The empirical evidence still needs to be examined and debated, but no longer can either side claim absolute objectivity in interpreting the evidence. Interpretation is filtered through one's worldview and all scientists are required to acknowledge their worldview whether it is naturalistic or theistic. Darwin on Trial is accessible for both scientists and non-scientists. It is an enjoyable read as Johnson is astute in pointing out the many fallacies of Darwinian thought. On more than one occasion you are left in shock that a highly educated scientist such as Gould or Dawkins would make such logically fallacious statements. Johnson also provides a response to his critics as an appendix in the second edition. He responds to Stephen Jay Gould, Michael Ruse and many others who have attempted to debunk his book. If you are new to the debate or just want to freshen up this is a great place to start. The only major criticism I have is that there are no footnotes (only research notes in the back of the book). The documentation is there but a bit hard to follow at times. Other than this small criticism Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial steers a helpful course in the murky waters of evolutionary science.
| 
