Customer Reviews

Darwin's Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

I am shocked by the vial hate-speech and mindless ad hominem attacks in the "reviews" printed below. They demonstrate just the kind of vicious closed-minded nonsense that ID proponents seek to dispel. To quote one extreme example (you can read it in context in John Kwok's "review" below): "I find the notion of a Festschrift published in honor of Professor Johnson as absurd as a group of Neo-Nazis publishing one to commemorate Adolf Hitler and his hate-filled book "Mein Kampf" (I find this an apt comparison since Johnson and quite a few of his supporters have an ideological world view that is remarkably close to the likes of Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden.)."

Well, to quote Adolf Hitler, whom this reviewer seems to have some familiarity with, "All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be." Several of these reviews marvelously illustrate this principle and shame on them for that. And good on the authors of Darwin's Nemesis, both advocates and opponents of ID, who seek a more reasoned approach.

As far as this book is concerned, it must have hit a raw nerve. One has to wonder what irrational opponents of Johnson and his thinking are so sensitive about. If Darwinism really does all that it claims, then it will survive if it is the fittest theory; if not, extinction is inevitable. Whatever happens, there is no place in a civilized society for the kind of hate-speech that a few reviewers clearly wish to substitute for rational arguments. Most appear to do this because they have not actually read the book, but simply hate Phillip Johnson. Buy the book, read it and make up your own mind. The irrational hatred of others is not a good basis for making any judgments in life.

(By way of full disclosure, I authored one of the chapters in Darwin's Nemesis. No, it is not a glowing tribute in support of ID. Yes, I do think that Phillip Johnson and those who disagree with him have a right to make their arguments in a way that allows others to rationally evaluate them. No, just in case there is any confusion about this, I don't support a world-view that in any way resembles that of Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden.)

The book itself is a good resource for readers who wish to learn more about the works of Phillip Johnson, a leader of the Intelligent Design theories/(facts according to his supporters). It is a one sided defense of Johnson and tears down Darwin. Granted, Darwin made lots of mistakes, but Darwin was the first word, not the most recent, researcher into evolution. One writer insists the world is 10,000 years old. Some writers refute the existence of genetic mutations, or that any mutated species could survive. I know of the research into genetic mutations of species that following nuclear blasts and I believe that genes can indeed mutate and find it sad we have to debate even this level of science. But, indeed, this is the core of this debate.

I note one writer who argues how terrible it is that there are those who believe that since religion is not testable truth that it can not be taught as truth in schools. Yes, that is why your truth has to be faith, not taught in public schools as truth. Students are of different faiths, and it is up to their faiths to teach them faith. It is the role of schools to teach testable truth. That's the way it is supposed to be. Sorry.

The book is a good resource. Even those who disagree with these views can learn from it and allow the debates on this to continue.

I have followed Johnson's work for a while, and the striking thing is how Darwinists not only believe in naturalistic evolution (which may be a supportable position), but also take the position that the beliefs of those who disagree are non-scientific and therefore not worthy to even be debated scientifically. That is, from the outset they define the terms of the debate in such a way that they win no matter what, because they define the opposing viewpoint in a way that it can't possibly win, by definiton.

This is dishonest and Johnson does well in pointing this out. Common sense would seem to dictate that the question of the origin of any physical, tangible, empirical artifact must necessarily be a question that is answerable by science, logic, or common sense as opposed to philosophy or religion. If you dug up a strange object, or found a monolith on the moon, or discovered an odd signal from outer space, in each instance the question of whether the artifact was intelligently designed would necessarily be a scientifc one and not a religious one... and that would be the case regardless of what the answer turned out to be. It would seem that this must be the case for any conceivable physical artifact. The fact that an artifact is a PHYSICAL artifact means that the question of whether it was intelligently designed must be a SCIENTIFIC question.

And yet, many Darwinists seem to be claiming that life on Earth is the one physical artifact that is an exception to this common sense rule. Any investigation into whether it was intelligently designed or not is inherently non-scientific, according to them. So, why is this? Why is life on Earth an exception to the rule? Why shouldn't the question of whether life was intelligently designed or not be discussed in a science class, when everyone would agree that this same question could be discussed in such a class in the case of any other physical object? Isn't life on Earth a physical object like all the rest? It is indeed, and it's also the most complex of all known physical objects, which should make an inference of intelligent design certainly within the realm of scientific inquiry.

Whether evolution is true I don't know, but Johnson does a good job of poking holes in certain logical fallacies that naturalists seem to place at the center of their arguments.

Santorum in the forward talks about "Darwinism naturalism". Sigh, is this anything like "Einsteinism naturalism"? You know, the belief that instead of a deity holding human beings on the planet earth instead of a warping of space/time by mass as described by Albert Einstein? Of course nobody ever says anything like "Einsteinism naturalism" because there is no (well virtually no) religious objections to relativism or special relativism. Creationists, sorry, Intelligent Design supporters don't believe that it goes against their religious beliefs. Also, to oppose Einstein along with Darwin would make them look really flaky. One must pick your battles, of course. Physics don't state that mass warps space/time because of some philosophical belief but because the evidence is overwhelming that it does. The same with evolutionary biologists when it comes to evolution. They believe in it because the evidence again, is overwhelming. Are we to believe that every scientist but biologists are really, really smart, with biologists being idiots? What are the chances of that?

The forward also states that ID is rapidly gaining an international following. Yes, among those who believe the earth is 6000-10,000 years old, because let's be honest, the strongest supporters and those who will buy this book, are exactly that. They believe in a literal Adam/Eve. They have an emotional investment in someone saying their beliefs are true, even if the person stating it can't clearly come out (for various reasons dealing with trying to make Intelligent Design look at least quasi-scientific in the courts and public opinion) and say that yes, people rode dinosaurs like Fred Flinstone.


Basically what this book is praising of Philip Johnson, and complaining about evolution being "forced" on society. Frankly, little if any, is actually devoted to the actual science of evolution. If you want to really understand evolution, then I recommend the books, "Why Evolution is True" by by the biologist Jerry Coyne or "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution", by the biologist Richard Dawkins. Yes, I know, the mentioning of Dr. Dawkins has many readers gnashing their teeth. He might not be the mythical anti-Christ to some, but he is darn close. Indeed, this book seems more to be about the history of the ID movement then any actual scientific examination. Many of the contributors to this book seem to have trouble understanding the difference between evolution v the origins of life or abiogensis. They are not the same thing of course but it is quite common for creationists, sorry again, Intelligent Design advocates to mix them up intentionally (or not, it's hard to tell sometimes) in the mind of the public. Lastly, why is evolution called Darwinism anyway? Darwin discovered the principles of natural selection and popularized evolution. He didn't invent either process. It would be like calling gravity, Einsteinity. It would be silly, just like this book.

"Darwin's Nemesis" (2006), ed. William Dembski, is a compendium of various Intelligent Design (ID) authors and their "friendly critics". The paperback's 357 pages are dedicated to Phillip Johnson's 65th birthday. Johnson, a Berkeley Law Professor, is credited as the founder (in the early 1980s) and mentor (into the present) of the ID movement.

The book's 19 chapters, authored by many scientists and experts, are divided into six sections. From these biologists, physicists, lawyers, engineers, theologians, and chemists one discovers Darwinism's materialism (p. 35), naturalism's idolatry (p. 19), the weak evidence for evolution (p. 53), Neo-Darwinism's presumed atheism (p. 138), secular humanism (p. 119), and the same Neo-Darwinism's explanation for design (p. 199).

Readers learn that Christians should not ignore the fossil record while teaching evolution or creation (p. 129-130). The book poignantly points out that, while educating, science should never be divorced from the humanities (p. 124). ID proponents are coached (through chapter 5) on how to teach Intelligent Design, in the ways to attract new converts, and about anger management in the face of militant evolutionists (believed to be the vast majorities of educators and scientists). The authors are optimistic that ID will catch on with ensuing generations.

Perhaps the best part of this book is Dembski's definition for ID- "...intelligent design is not a religious doctrine about where everything came from but rather a scientific investigation into how patterns exhibited by finite arrangement of matter can signify intelligence" (p. 98). The most peculiar section of the book is Borges' four-page chapter 8, which attempts an evolution explanation through a set of curious stories. (One hopes that other evolutionists are not as weird!)

Although this book does not necessarily persuade towards ID (such convincing may not be the authors' agenda), it is a real eye opener. It is comfortably researched (with 30 pages of endnotes) and contains several charts, black and white photos, and maps. "Darwin's Nemesis" is well written, interesting, and informative. If you are wondering about ID this text answers many questions.

This book is recommended to all ID buffs, anyone wishing to refute it, and those curious about it.

This book is a splendid book for understanding thoroughly the background history and positions of Intelligent Design -- regardless of where or which side of the controversy one may position himself.

If the observed complexity of biological processes is an argument for an intelligent designer, then the designer must have been more complicated than the design.

So... who designed the designer? Intelligent Design: R.I.P.

This problem of infinite regress is typical of the sloppy, pseudo-scientific worldview of the creationists (and make no mistake about it, that's what the I.D. people are). In order to gain respectibility, they set up what appears to be a scientific axiom: everything must come from something. But the power of an axiom is that it must be true in all cases, and the creationists then immediately add an exception: God didn't have to come from anything, he was always here.

This is certainly faith. Just don't call it science, and don't call creationists scientists. And don't try to use laughable arguments like these against the powerfully explanatory idea of evolution. Virtually all of the arguments advanced by the enemies of Darwinism fall apart in the hands of people who actually understand what the modern theory of evolution actually says, and what the mechanisms of evolution actually are (the fact that someone like Behe believes that his "mousetrap" argument is convincing shows that he really does not understand evolutionary theory at all.)

A number of things occurred to me while reading this tediously pompous, self-congratulatory book. In no particular order:

I'm amused by cheerleaders whose clueless self-absorption keeps them relentlessly cheering, "We're #1," even as their team is being slaughtered; and I couldn't help noticing the similarity to this relentlessly clueless, self-absorbed paean to ID, published so soon after ID's Debacle in Dover.

Traipsing Into Evolution, the Discovery Institute's (DI) book-length response to that debacle, was equally clueless. (See my review for some examples of Traipsing's breathtaking inanity.) While reading Darwin's Nemesis (DN), I discovered that Traipsing not only has the factual and analytical errors I originally found, but some of its key arguments are diametrically opposed to statements made in DN by other prominent ID spokesmen. For example, Traipsing's vehement attack on Judge Jones' statement that evolution is not necessarily incompatible with religious belief was one of Traipsing's major arguments, but there are several statements in DN, including statements from Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, and Phillip Johnson himself, that essentially endorse Judge Jones' position. What's up with that? Was DI so eager to attack Judge Jones that it simply ignored similar statements from its own members? That's pretty pathetic.

DN's statements about theistic evolution, including Behe's own statement, were also diametrically opposed to Behe's argument in Traipsing that ID's negative arguments against evolution are legitimate because, according to Behe, they are based on a valid dichotomy, in which intelligent and natural causes never interact. Since theistic evolution involves the interaction of intelligent and natural causes, DN-Behe's casual acknowledgment of theistic evolution destroys the validity of Traipsing-Behe's dichotomy. So Judge Jones was right: Using negative arguments against evolution as evidence for ID is illogical, because it employs a false dichotomy. And Behe looks like a clueless flip-flopper who can't keep track of key aspects of his own arguments.

Johnson said the quality of the papers in DN spoke for itself. Well, yes, but probably not the way Johnson thought. Some papers included all the Bible-thumping, self-righteous moralizing, and God-of-the-gaps arguments that creationists have always been known for. Other papers included some of the bizarre arguments that creationists are also known for: Evolution entails atheism, evolution entails philosophical naturalism, most mutations are harmful, etc. They never learn.

What the papers didn't include -- again, typical of creationists -- was even a hint of how ID principles could function in science. For example, what testable, positive predictions does ID make about the order of the fossil record? Apparently none. About the age of the earth? Apparently none. About homologies and vestigial organs? Apparently none. About the remarkable embryological similarities, not just between widely separated species, but between widely separated genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla? Apparently ID makes no -- repeat, no -- positive, testable predictions about any of those major areas. As science, ID is just worthless.

Judging from DN, ID theory apparently means nothing more than this: "Things that were intelligently designed were designed by a designer who was intelligent." That's just pathetic.

Some contributors lauded Johnson for "bravely" advocating ID, even though it exposed him to the fawning adulation of thousands of science-illiterate Christians. It reminded me of a Dave Barry (?) column praising women like Anna Nicole Smith for "bravely" getting breast implants, even though it exposes them to the risk of millionaire playboys offering them dinners, diamonds, and condos in Manhattan. Such bravery is surely an inspiration to us all.

Johnson claimed that one of his most important contributions was his ability to focus attention on critical issues. How come Johnson didn't focus any attention on evolution's successful, positive predictions about the natural world and compare that to ID's inability even to generate, much less confirm, any positive predictions? I guess Johnson was avoiding that critical issue. (But avoiding it bravely!)

Thomas Woodward contributed an essay. His bombastic cheerleading can't conceal his appalling ignorance. (See my review of his Doubts About Darwin.)

Francis Beckwith's bafflegab about evolutionists' allegedly "self-refuting" statements reveals his inability (or refusal) to recognize and interpret nuanced statements accurately. Beckwith's strategy (which he also used in Law, Darwinism, and Public Education in "analyzing" Judge Overton's decision in the McLean case), is to take a statement from one context, analyze its appropriateness in a different context, and then triumphantly conclude that since the statement is nonsensical in the second context, it must be nonsensical in its original context. Beckwith's word-games are conceptually equivalent to arguing that nothing is better than Jesus, and beer is better than nothing, therefore beer is better than Jesus. Such word-games may not be self-refuting, but they are pretty dumb.

Beckwith also implies that California's policy statement on science violates a court order on anti-dogmatism, and he cites Johnson's bizarre argument from Darwin on Trial in support. Johnson claimed that the whole point of California's Policy Statement was to promote evolution. His evidence? ". . . the Policy Statement itself does not refer explicitly to evolution." Johnson then claimed that the Policy Statement established a philosophical justification for teaching evolution in a dogmatic manner. His evidence? "The Policy Statement emphasizes that neither science nor anything else should be taught dogmatically." Under Johnson's (and, apparently, Beckwith's) bizarre "analysis," the evidence that California's science teachers teach evolution dogmatically consists of the fact that there is a policy against it. That "logic" resembles the witchcraft trials in the Dark Ages, where both confessing and refusing to confess proved the accused's guilt . Apparently, Beckwith and Johnson are blind to the problem inherent in their medieval "logic," just as ID-proponents in general are blind to the problems inherent in ID's medieval "science."

If you are in the market for mindless self-promotion, this book is for you. If not, it's pretty much of a waste.

"I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that's comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it's doable, but that's for them to prove...No product is ready for competition in the educational world. "

-Phillip Johnson
Berkeley Science Review, 2006

Darwin's most celebrated nemesis was Samuel Wilberforce, the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the Anglican Church, who was ridiculed by the young biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, in a now famous debate on evolution held in England back in 1860. It's clearly a bit of an exaggeration to describe former University of California, Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson as "Darwin's Nemesis", since he has come across more as a lightweight intellectual Luddite in his criticisms of evolutionary biology. I will concede that Phillip Johnson may be a gifted legal scholar and a fine law school teacher (One of his former students may have been a former classmate of mine in Frank McCourt's celebrated Stuyvesant High School creative writing course, who earned some notoriety nearly a decade ago for being one of the two female attorneys responsible for deposing Monica Lewinsky at Special White House Counsel Kenneth Starr's Whitewater Washington, D. C.-based grand jury.). But frankly, that's all the credit I am willing to concede to Professor Johnson, since he has demonstrated repeatedly his gross ignorance of science and understanding how excellent scientific research is done (For example, please see my Amazon.com customer review of his book "Darwin on Trial" which I wrote a few years ago.). Such ignorance has been displayed repeatedly by Johnson in his spirited advocacy of "Intelligent Design", via his "Wedge Strategy", in which he and his colleagues have sought to portray "Intelligent Design" as a viable, credible alternative to the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution (Of which its fundamental core was - and still remains - Darwin's Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection; one of the "fathers" of the Modern Synthesis, distinguished Russian-American geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky once said that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.". That profound declaration by Dobzhansky still holds true today.). However, "Intelligent Design" is merely the latest manifestation of an old idea stated originally by William Paley back in the 17th Century, which was rejected soundly not by Darwin and his circle of friends, but instead, by "creationist" precursors who were both eminent scientists and clergymen in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. More succinctly, and indeed, more to the point, this apparently "novel" idea was rejected once by scientists hundreds of years ago; but Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, and William Dembski valiantly wish that it receive ample consideration from the scientific community, even after Judge John Jones' landmark decision in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Board of Education trial, in which he concluded that Intelligent Design was a religious doctrine masquerading as science (It is posted at:
htttp://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_kitzmiller_decision.pdf.).

I find the notion of a Festschrift published in honor of Professor Johnson as absurd as a group of Neo-Nazis publishing one to commemorate Adolf Hitler and his hate-filled book "Mein Kampf" (I find this an apt comparison since Johnson and quite a few of his supporters have an ideological world view that is remarkably close to the likes of Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden.). If these 19 papers in "Darwin's Nemesis: Phillip Johnson And the Intelligent Design Movement" demonstrate anything, they note only his importance as the movement's spiritual godfather. However, more importantly, these papers demonstrate collectively the lack of good judgement, sloppy logic, and, quite frankly, intellectual dishonesty of "Intelligent Design" supporters. There are other, much better, and intellectually honest, books on this issue, such as Robert Pennock's "Tower of Babel" (It has the best historical overview and philosophical rebuttal to "Intelligent Design" that I've read so far.), Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God (My friend Ken has a brilliant rebuke of the Intelligent Design argument of irreducible complexity.), and Eugenie Scott's "Evolution vs. Creationism" (Her book may be the best introductory textbook on this issue available now.). Don't waste your time thinking of acquiring this book, which is a vapid tribute to Intelligent Design's spiritual godfather; it should have been entitled "When Fools Rush In".

(EDITORIAL NOTE: I was tempted to ignore ad hominenm attacks masquerading as comments listed below, but will note that these remarks are exactly what you'd expect from Intellectual Luddites.)