Customer Reviews

Darwin on Trial

5 star:		(83)
4 star:		(18)
3 star:		(13)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(46)

 

 

Although most of his arguments are not new, Johnson brings the most important points together in a remarkably concise yet comprehensive format. He has a gift for summarizing the research in each field, then explaining and elucidating the implications of an issue, in just enough words to make it understandable.

He points out the mind-boggling complexity of structures like wings and eyes, but does not dwell on these descriptions like some critics, for he realizes that nearly all informed people agree that living things are that complex. The Darwinian Richard Dawkins writes, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose," but insists that "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning."

The premise that appearance can be misleading is not unreasonable. Scientists proved the appearance of the sun revolving around the earth to be an illusion. The problem, which constitutes Johnson's central scientific premise, is that there is no evidence that natural selection has the immense creative power Darwinians attribute to it. The Darwinian claim that the numerous theoretical difficulties with Darwinism are false is based not on scientific fact but almost entirely on pure speculation.

Johnson is not a scientist, but his central thesis is philosophical. Darwinians insist that considering divine intervention is unacceptable because science is committed to purely natural explanations. The problem is, how do scientists know *a priori* that natural processes alone are sufficient to produce the diversity of life on earth? Some may argue that this assumption is well-grounded, but scientists do not have the exclusive authority to tell us whether a *philosophical* assumption is true or not.

His scientific data are all from reputable scientific sources. To this date I have not seen a single valid criticism revealing a major inaccuracy in the data - and I have read many reviews of the book, some by prominent scientists. Stephen J. Gould's review tried to point out several minor inaccuracies, but he misquoted and distorted the book to make that point.

Most of Johnson's factual premises are tacitly conceded by Darwinians themselves. One example: David Raup, an internationally renowned paleontologist, made some remarkable concessions in an essay supposed to *refute* creationism. He wrote the following: (1) Darwin wrote that if smooth evolutionary transitions were not found in the fossil record, his general theory would be in serious trouble. (2) More than a hundred years later, after a tremendous expansion of knowledge about the fossil record, the situation is more or less the same. "We may actually have fewer examples of smooth transition than we had in Darwin's time because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail." (3) This can still be reconciled with Darwin's theory in various ways, and although Raup conceded that a more inclusive theory may take its place in the future, he rejected creationism largely because of the belief in a young earth.

While Raup's defense may have seemed reasonable, especially to those who take for granted that all creationists believe in a `young earth,' Raup directly implied that scientists accept Darwin's theory in spite of the fossil evidence. None of the anti-creationist literature with which I am familiar - and I am well-read on the issue - directly contradict what Raup wrote. But with rare exceptions, they try very hard to conceal this implication he was forthright about.

Johnson is careful to avoid certain fallacies earlier critics have made - such as the claim that natural selection is inherently tautological, that it involves pure `chance,' that evolution is `unfalsifiable,' etc. Some reviews of the book, such as one by Eugenie Scott, caricatured his arguments to make it sound like he'd just rehashed old discredited criticisms. In fact, Johnson repeatedly demonstrates an awareness of how Darwinians respond to criticisms of their theory, and he takes these well into account.

The biggest criticism I have of Johnson is his frequent vagueness on whether he is attacking just the theory of natural selection or common ancestry itself. Some proponents of intelligent design, such as Darwin's Black Box author Michael Behe, accept the doctrine of common ancestry. I agree with Johnson that Darwinians use the word `evolution' vaguely to suppress distinctions between different meanings of the term, but he also seems to be saying that common ancestry is too vague a doctrine to be evaluated independently of Darwinian natural selection. The book would be more persuasive if he was clearer where and when he is criticizing each doctrine.

Many of Johnson's articles and essays written after the book are worth reading, but he exhibits a certain shallowness in debating the scientific details of his position with Darwinians. Many other proponents of intelligent design - many of whom are trained scientists - while perhaps not as accessible, support his basic viewpoint with ultimately greater depth and clarity. I particularly recommend the following links:

http://www.arn.org

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter3.html

This book by Phillip E. Johnson, titled Darwin on Trial, has been on my bookshelf for some time now. I decided to read Johnson's book after I recently read a comment on Amazon.com by a young scientist who stated he enjoyed it when a scientific theory was disproved, because that is what made being a scientist so exciting for him. Certainly a very curious statement.

Considering Johnson's profession, I thought it was unusual that he would write a book evaluating the strong and weak points of historic Darwinism and also what he called Neo-Darwinism. Johnson is a lawyer, thus the book title Darwin on Trial. He spends the entire first chapter laying out the specific way he approached writing this book. Concerning that, he states the following:

"Before undertaking this task I should say something about my qualifications and purpose. I am not a scientist but an academic lawyer by profession, with a specialty in analyzing and logic of arguments and identifying the assumptions that lie behind those arguments. This background is more appropriate than one might think, because what people believe about evolution and Darwinism depends very heavily on the kind of logic they employ and the kind of assumptions they make. Being a scientist is not necessarily an advantage when dealing with a very broad topic like evolution, which cuts across many scientific disciplines and also involves issues of philosophy. Practicing scientists are of necessity highly specialized, and a scientist outside his field of expertise is just another layman."

Interestingly, Johnson is not a creation-science proponent. He says he is a creationist, one who believes there is a God and it is likely God used evolution as His method of creation. This puts him in a tenuous position of inciting the ire of both the Neo-Darwinists (naturalists) as well as the Genesis record Christians. That in itself guarantees he will receive a constant barrage of criticism, no matter what he says. After surveying a smattering of the comments on Amazon.com, his critics are many, but few it seems took the time to read the first chapter, which is what I refer to as Johnson's purpose chapter, and instead unloaded their general displeasure with Johnson, himself, his credentials, or what they view as his lack thereof, and his failure to cover a particular scientific or biblical material they deemed critical. Many kept their civility during their disagreement, while others simply forgot where they were--a public forum--unloading on Johnson in what can only be described as a childish tantrum.

Johnson's book is nicely laid out, introducing subjects like Natural Selection, Mutations, Fossil Problem and an examination of why evolution is no longer referred to as a theory, but a fact. This is only a small representation of what Johnson covers in his book. In most of the chapters, he covers how Darwin, Neo-Darwinists and specific scientists describe the general details of the theory of evolution. Using his knowledge of the subject, which I found surprisingly detailed for an academic lawyer, and applying his purpose analysis method, Johnson was, as far as I am concerned, evenhanded with his applause for the natural scientific position, as well as what he found as wanting, misleading and missing, too. I'm sure many of the reviewers will disagree with me here, but this is my book review, not theirs. The following is an example of Johnson's analysis.

"This conclusion seems so obviously correct that it give rise to another problem. Why do other people, including experts whose intelligence and intellectual integrity I respect, think that evidence of local population fluctuations confirms the hypothesis that natural selection has the capacity to work engineering marvels, to construct wonders like the eye and the wing? Everyone who studies evolution knows that Kettlewell's peppered moth experiment is the classic demonstration of the power of natural selection, and that Darwinists has to wail almost a century to see even this modest confirmation of their central doctrine. Everyone who studies the experiment also knows that it as nothing to do with the origin of an species, or even any variety, because dark and white moths were present throughout the experiment. Only the ratios of one variety to the other changed. How could intelligent people have been so gullible as to imagine that the Kettewell experiment in any way supported the ambitious claims of Darwinism? To answer that question we need to consider a fourth way in which natural selection can be formulate."

I found the following statement by Darwin concerning natural selection an eye-widening admission. This book has a number of similar quotes from a variety of Darwinists and Neo-Darwinists:

Darwin wrote that "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species has been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection" Johnson follows with, "But this is the same Darwin who insisted that he had never claimed that natural selection was the exclusive mechanism of evolution."

I think this gives you an idea of how Johnson handled each subject and his subsequent analytical conclusions. His book is footnoted in the way I personally prefer, at the bottom of the appropriate page for convenience instead of at the end of the book. In addition, Johnson included an impressive 43-page Research Notes section, along with the usual Index. He also included a very personal Epilogue titled The Book and Its Critics [I have the 1993, second edition], which may not be included in the first edition. One interesting item that Johnson includes is the response to this book by one of the oft-referenced scientists, Stephen Gould. A year after the book was published, Gould wrote a 4-page review of Darwin on Trail in an issue of "Scientific American." According to Johnson, "The review was an undistinguished hatchet job, aimed at giving the impression that my skepticism about Darwinism must be due to an ignorance of basic facts of biology. To that end Gould listed a string of objections about matters that had nothing to do with the main line of argument, and even invoked his own third-grade teacher as an authority on how to write chapter transitions."

Finally, Johnson summaries his findings at the end of his book as follows:

"The argument of 'Darwin on Trial' is that we know a great deal less than has been claimed. In particular, we do not know how the immensely complex organ systems of plants and animals could have been created by mindless and purposeless natural processes, as Darwinists say they must have been. Darwinian theory attributes biological complexity to the accumulation of adaptive micromutations by natural selection, but the creative power of this hypothetical mechanism has never been demonstrated, and the fossil evidence is inconsistent with the claim that biological creation occurred in the way."

If you are interested in an overview and analysis of the greater points of Darwinism, this would be a good place to start. There is plenty of information to consider, and enough cited references to do your own fact-checking.

I have finally read this book, after years of reading criticisms of it, and I am amazed at what a good case Johnson actually makes and how woefully inept most of his critics have been.
For those who have not read the book, Johnson argues the following points:
* The scientific establishment, rather than defending evolution against criticism, has determined that no such criticism shall take place.
* Evolution is defined so loosely that no criticism of it is possible.
* The term "natural selection" is a tautology and so explains nothing.
* The experimental evidence for Darwinism does not provide "any persuasive reason for believing that natural selection can produce new species, new organs, or other major changes, or even minor changes that are permanent."
* Darwinians are so clever at finding evidence that confirms their theory and explaining the evidence that appears to contradict it, that it looks as if all the evidence is supportive.
* The theory of sexual selection contradicts the theory of natural selection.
* Haeckel's hypothesis that "ontology recapitulates phylogeny" is still taught in schools despite being completely discredited more than a century ago. (This I know to be true, as I still teach a syllabus which requires it.)
* Darwinian theory is not falsifiable, because its supporters cannot or will not make the risky predictions which would allow it to be falsified.
* Anyone who questions the orthodoxy of scientific naturalism, or Darwinism in particular, is rigorously persecuted by the scientific establishment.
This must be one of the most vilified books ever written. Johnson is repeatedly accused by critics of trespassing into an area in which he has no expertise, as his whole professional career has been devoted to the practice and interpretation of law. These critics appear not to have noticed that this book is a response to a legal decision. He is also accused of trying to prove the case for creationism, whereas his introductory chapter states explicitly that he is not defending creation-science and his book does not address the Biblical accounts of creation." (p.14)
In addition, Johnson is accused of the following: misunderstanding the scientific process and rules of evidence, misrepresenting the works of respected scientists, discrediting the fossil evidence, neglecting the evolution of plants, poor reasoning, inability to frame an argument, abysmal writing, taking criticisms of creationism personally and acting like a spoilt child when his book is criticised.
There is one important respect in which the book is out-of-date: it was published in 1993, several years before the completion of the human genome project, and can thus give no account of the enormous weight of genetic evidence which has poured in since then. But I think Johnson can hardly be blamed for this.
And yet, the astonishing thing is that hardly any of these critics (even the small number who have actually read the book) have even mentioned, much less refuted, his major arguments. Thus his book, unlike the theory he is criticizing, has withstood the test of falsification. From a scientific point of view, this is the strongest possible confirmation that he is right.

Other reviews of this book discuss the broad themes, so I will concentrate on picking out one or two examples. How could a foreleg evolve into a wing? By Darwinian theory every stage of this evolution must be better adapted to survival than the stage before. On the other hand we know that intermediate stages, particularly the not-quite-evolved-wing that is not yet suitable for flight, are useless as either foreleg or wing. Darwinian theory seems to imply that such involved evolution could not occur. Evolutionists might claim that it must have been suitable for something because it did evolve this way, but this would be circular reasoning. It is common to say (or imply) that the wing is better fit to survive and so supports evolutionary theory, but it seems to refute that theory when looked at as a continuous evolutionary process instead of looking only at the start and finish.

It gets better. Consider the bat, an animal that navigates by sonar. It has two sonar organs: an emitter and a receiver. These had to evolve simultaneously for each is useless without the other. There is no room in evolutionary theory to explain this. The author points out numerous holes such as this in the standard theory.

While it is tempting to some to conclude that evolutionary theory is simply wrong, the correct conclusion is that it is incomplete and should be taught as such. Nothing says that the standard theory cannot have been a factor in the development of life that exists today and it seems it almost certainly was, but it is an incomplete theory. Please notice I have said nothing about what the alternative might be and in this I have followed the book, for the author does not appear to be a creationist from its content. The best one sentence summary of Darwin On Trial is that the author makes a powerful critique of evolutionary theory from within the bounds of accepted science.

I never expected to be impressed with this book. I was a dyed-in-the-wool believer in the standard theory until I read this book and found cogent reasoning from observable facts. I confess I read it only to make a point to another person who believes in creationism and said I should at least get some data. I am still not a creationist but have certainly learned the limits of Darwin's theory, something I believe Darwin would have agreed with.

I am amused by those who criticize Johnson, a lawyer, for examining evolutionary theory. While lawyers are not scientists, they often delve into scientific issues even during their legal practice. Moreover, lawyers are explicitly trained to detect and expose fallacious arguments, of which evolutionary theory has quite a few (that's putting it mildly). One does not have to agree with every detail of Johnson's excellent analysis in order to appreciate his deconstruction of evolution. Finally, those who complain that legal standards of evidence should not be applied to ostensibly scientific theories should recognize that they have themselves to blame: Were evolutionary theory not taught as fact to laypersons and unsuspecting students, it would not be also put in a position where it is subject to the highest standards of evidentiary reasoning--and where it fails miserably.

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.

This book reveals how ground rules and word definitions are used to insulate the modern story of the unguided origin and development of life on earth from criticism. It shows how concern that an explanation be "science" has supplanted concern that the explanation be true. "What first drew my attention to the [creation-evolution dispute]", says Johnson in the book, "was the way the rules of argument seemed to be structured to make it impossible to question whether what we are being told about evolution is really true."

By examining the playing field on which the origins debate takes place, Professor Johnson makes an important and lasting contribution to that debate. The impact of his work is evident in the blossoming "Intelligent Design" movement. I found this book to be the most insightful and profound contribution to the origins debate I'd seen in a long time. The ten years that have passed since its publication have not dulled its importance.

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!

Preceding negative reviews of this book have focused on issues of science: arguments about fossils, dating, etc. The real issue, which is addressed by Johnson & others elsewhere, regards philosophy. Most proponents of evolution today insist that only atheist science is "real" science. That implies they don't come to science with open minds, but with a commitment to explain the world in purely materialistic terms, regardless of what evidence (or lack thereof) there might be. It also means that all their pro-evolution arguments use a rhetoric designed to avoid any real argument; this is what Johnson is particularly good at exposing, given his legal training.

Evolutionism is not a development of empirical science, but a far-reaching attempt to offer a new philosophical framework for humanity -- one independent of Christianity. The biological theory is almost an afterthought; it's full of holes because it is only there to support the "new metaphysic". The "logic" of evolution is: there's no God, but we're here, so there must be a means (purely materialistic) by which we came to be. The fault is in the assumption.

Since the Enlightenment, science has not only been a tool to technological development; it has also had a philosophical side, providing a "new metaphysic" to replace that of Christianity, the dominant metaphysic of the previous historial "age". This is critically important -- science not only offers to describe the world, but to interpret it. The theories of the evolutionists are very important to this effort of offering a new interpretation. What do they tell us? That human life has neither meaning nor purpose, nor intrinsic value. In place of the Christian notion of creation in God's image, we now have offered to us creation via accident. In place of a view of human life as sacred, we now have offered to us a fully utilitarian view. The practical consequences of ideologies based on atheism/nihilism/darwinism include: mass murder, abortion, homosexuality (as an accepted "lifestyle"), euthanasia, etc. The horrors of the 20th century, including 200 million dead, show the results of these ideologies when put into practice in real societies. Judge the tree by the fruit.

Philip Johnson (and others) do a great service just by calling into question the dogmas of atheist materialism (masquerading as "science") and evolutionism, which today are held to be unquestionable, particularly in public schools where the young are indoctrinated. This book is just a first step, an icebreaker, to get into the issue. I highly recommend Johnson's other books on evolution, and I look forward to reading "The Wedge of Truth" (having seen a preview in Touchstone magazine).

DARWIN ON TRIAL appears in its 20th anniversary edition to offer a fine survey adding fire to the evolution debate twenty years after its original publication. Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinian evolution involved scientists and theologians in debate from its first appearance in 1991, sparking discussions in academic and popular journals and engaging leading evolutionists in discussions. This keystone of the intelligent design movement will earn a spot in any collection.