Voted one of 1998 Books of the Year! For decades, Christians have felt voiceless in the critical debate over evolution. Until now. Finally, ordinary Christians have the opportunity and the resources to defeat the false claims of Darwinism. With all of the complicated scientific debate swirling around the topic of evolution, Christians need an easy way to understand the basic issues without oversimplifying. Phillip Johnson has the answer: the key to defeating the false claims of Darwinism is to open our minds to good thinking habits. Here is first-rate advice on avoiding common mistakes in discussions about evolution, understanding the legacy of the Scopes trial, spotting deceptive arguments, and grasping the basic scientific issues without getting bogged down in unnecessary details. In the bestselling and critically acclaimed Darwin on Trial and Reason in the Balance, Phillip Johnson took on the academic elites and exposed the misleading claims of evolutionary naturalism. provides a new and powerful treatment of these issues for high-school students, parents, teachers, pastors, youth advisors and ordinary readers. Johnson aims not just to defeat a bad theory, but to defeat it in the right way-by opening minds to the truth.
| ||||||||||||||||||
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
From Booklist
Johnson feels his successful antievolution books, Darwin on Trial (1991) and Reason in the Balance (1995), are more complicated than parents and teachers need to prepare students to take on the evolutionists. Hence, this shorter version of his overall thesis that also advises how to debate evolution. Johnson first makes clear what he perceives the real adversary to be: a dogma that insists life arose solely by chance and that denies contrary evidence a hearing. He then counsels believers to avoid such common mistakes as retreating from theism to deism (and so transforming a continuously creative God into an uninvolved First Cause), to learn to spot faulty analogies and other forms of poor logic, to know the soundest scientific data casting doubt on classical evolution, and to persist--for, he says, the days of Darwinian hegemony are numbered. He firmly believes and seeks to persuade readers that his ultimate causes, aside from religious faith, are freedom of inquiry and the opening of now closed minds. Ray Olson
--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
106 of 155 people found the following review helpful
By John Rummel
Format:Paperback
As a defender of creation science, Phillip Johnson is a breath of fresh air. Nowhere are there indefensible scientific arguments for a young earth, or a worldwide flood that accounts for the fossil record, or any of the other endlessly recycled Henry Morris/Duane Gish nonsense that makes up so much of the creationist "young earth" camp. Johnson frames the question more on a philosophical level, pitting the presuppositions of both camps against one another (materialistic naturalism vs. theistic supernaturalism), and attempting to show that adherents of the first camp make just as many untestable and unsupportable assumptions as the adherents of the second. Johnson is a talented writer, and presents a positive argument for "opening" the debate by forcing the evolutionists to relax their dogmatic hold on the thinking in academia, and allow for a more open and free discussion of the actual issues, including evidence for supernatural intervention in the creation and evolution of life.
Unfortunately, the only positive evidence Johnson suggests is Michael Behe's irreducible complexity argument, which is just a repackaged intelligent design model, and the conventional attack on biology's admitted problem with the incompleteness of the fossil record. Throughout the book, Johnson emphasizes the dominance of the materialistic philosophy that pervades every aspect of modern public education and academia. This predisposition, he argues, hopelessly biases any approach to scientific facts and prevents scientists from appreciating the fuller truth that's out there if only they would open their eyes (minds). Johnson repeatedly mischaracterizes the practice of science and the state of affairs in biological circles.
Johnson's representation of the state of open mindedness in contemporary education is questionable. He seems to assume that the dominate role of a college education is to force memorization of a list of "materialistic" facts upon impressionable minds. As an educator, I see the situation as exactly the opposite. Thoughtful reflection and open minded investigation are far more common than Johnson seems to think.
A few specific examples where I think Johnson misses the boat just as badly: page 113 "Evolutionary biology is a field whose cultural importance far outstrips its modest intellectual and scientific content." I think most biologists would take issue with the characterization of the content of their science as "modest."
Page 114 "Biologists are at each others throats in private, fighting over every detail in the Darwinist scientific program. The versions of 'evolution' promulgated by Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould , for example, have hardly anything in common except their common adherence to philosophical materialism and their mutual dislike for supernatural creation." He goes on to strongly imply that this ongoing debate is somehow being hidden. Anything but. I assume Johnson has read Dawkins' and Gould's books and should know better. As for their versions of evolution being so different, I'd venture to say that their agreements are far more substantial than their disagreements, and maybe Johnson should examine the actual differences between the scientific views of Michael Behe and Duane Gish, for example. Other creationists have similarly sought to highlight and utilize the differences between various cosmologists and, for instance, the issue of the age of the universe. While there might be legitimate and sometimes bitter disputes between astrophysicists over the size of the Hubble Constant, this dispute hardly gives any hope to the young- earther who is holding out for a 6000 year old universe.
Johnson's use of the example of evangelist Billy Graham deciding against studying the natural sciences and liberal theologies of his contemporaries strikes me as odd. If the naturalistic position is so untenable due to its weak foundation, what does Christianity and creation science have to fear by its presence in academia? How would Billy Graham's witness and testimony for Christianity have been weakened by studying the opposing philosophies? Is Johnson suggesting that attrition from traditional evangelical and fundamentalist circles can be stemmed by preventing the study of modern science?
Johnson's book is admittedly aimed at young readers, students who are going off to college to be faced with the inevitable "indoctrination" of materialism. But I'm not sure what his bottom line advice is for them. Does he wish them to shun the life sciences (as well as astronomy, archeology, geology, and other sciences) where the creation science theories will receive little sympathy? Or does he expect their professors to actually engage in the debate over the relative merits of their respective presuppositions? Does he believe that Christianity (or any religion) actually has anything to fear from the discoveries of science?
I wish Johnson well. His logic and rhetoric are powerful and he's a good arguer. However, I fear that his tactics will not advance the cause of creation science very much. Until scientists who believe in supernatural creation are willing to go toe to toe in the scientific journals, arguments of materialistic bias will yield few advances in the understanding of the origin of life.
And even if they do, this approach is destined to fail. Science is the study of phenomena that can be observed, tested, and replicated. Science relies on the construction of logical arguments that can be supported or falsified by such observation and testing. By definition, science will seek explanations for the apparently unexplainable. This is implicit in the process of scientific discovery. Religious belief systems ask that we accept as true that which cannot be seen or tested (Hebrews 11:1). Religion seeks certainty and welcomes the appeal to authority (e.g., thus saith the Lord). It is at this point that the two belief systems must part ways and agree to pursue their independent goals. Forcing one upon the other results in untenable scientific positions (such as most of creation science) or watered down and compromised religious traditions bereft of their spiritual meaning.
5.0 out of 5 stars
THE "DARWIN ON TRIAL" AUTHOR WRITES A BOOK AT THE "HIGH-SCHOOL LEVEL"
May 9, 2013
Format:Paperback
Phillip E. Johnson (born 1940) is a retired UC Berkeley law professor and a co-founder of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, and is one of the leading figures in the Intelligent Design movement. He has also written books such as Darwin on Trial, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education, Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law and Culture, The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism, etc.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1997 book, "This book grew out of two conversations. The first was... with ... my usual publisher. The [InterVarsity] Press was ready for me to do another book, but I wasn't sure I was ready... however, it became clear that there was ONE book I needed to write very soon... There was clearly a need for a short book aimed at ... [those] not quite so familiar with university-level subjects. In particular, I wanted to write for late teens... That brings me to the second conversation, which occurred in the faculty club of my own university... [I realized that] If high-schoolers need a good high-school education in how to think about evolution, professors and senior scientists seem to need it just as badly. That's what this book aims to give---a good high-school education in how to think about evolution." (Pg. 9-11)
He comments about the Scopes "Monkey Trial": "Darrow did not want to balance the Bible with evolutionary science; he wanted to get rid of religion and replace it with science and agnostic philosophy. On the other hand, [William Jennings] Bryan truly was a scientific ignoramus, and the wily Darrow really did make a fool out of him. If Darrow had wanted, he probably could just as easily have made the leading evolutionary scientists of the day look foolish. For example, some of these scientists confidently cited the fraudulent Piltdown Man and the tooth of 'Nebraska Man' (which turned out to be from a kind of pig) as proof of human evolution. If Bryan was confused about the evidence for evolution, he had a lot of respectable company." (Pg. 29)
He argues, "Think how much pressure the other physical anthropologists are under to develop standards that will allow SOME fossils to be authenticated as human ancestors... why do you think such a high proportion of the fossils used to prove 'evolution' come from this one specialty? Why do you think Niles Eldredge, a specialist in marine invertebrates, uses hominid examples rather than the vast record of fossil invertebrates to argue the case for evolution?" (Pg. 62)
He observes, "Most readers of this book probably don't feel qualified to judge scientific disputes. For that matter, Richard Dawkins [The God Delusion] himself is a zoologist and not a biochemist, and he told me himself that he doesn't feel qualified to debate [Michael] Behe's scientific claims [Darwins Black Box]." (Pg. 79) He adds, "Behe is a Roman Catholic who has no religious objection to Darwinian evolution; his argument is simply that the Darwinian mechanism has no scientific merit in molecular biology. Neither [critic] contradicted Behe on any scientific point. Their objections were entirely philosophical, or based on a failure to comprehend the concept of design." (Pg. 80)
Those who enjoy Johnson's other books will surely enjoy this (unless they are looking for a MORE "detailed" presentation, which is admittedly not his aim in this book).
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1997 book, "This book grew out of two conversations. The first was... with ... my usual publisher. The [InterVarsity] Press was ready for me to do another book, but I wasn't sure I was ready... however, it became clear that there was ONE book I needed to write very soon... There was clearly a need for a short book aimed at ... [those] not quite so familiar with university-level subjects. In particular, I wanted to write for late teens... That brings me to the second conversation, which occurred in the faculty club of my own university... [I realized that] If high-schoolers need a good high-school education in how to think about evolution, professors and senior scientists seem to need it just as badly. That's what this book aims to give---a good high-school education in how to think about evolution." (Pg. 9-11)
He comments about the Scopes "Monkey Trial": "Darrow did not want to balance the Bible with evolutionary science; he wanted to get rid of religion and replace it with science and agnostic philosophy. On the other hand, [William Jennings] Bryan truly was a scientific ignoramus, and the wily Darrow really did make a fool out of him. If Darrow had wanted, he probably could just as easily have made the leading evolutionary scientists of the day look foolish. For example, some of these scientists confidently cited the fraudulent Piltdown Man and the tooth of 'Nebraska Man' (which turned out to be from a kind of pig) as proof of human evolution. If Bryan was confused about the evidence for evolution, he had a lot of respectable company." (Pg. 29)
He argues, "Think how much pressure the other physical anthropologists are under to develop standards that will allow SOME fossils to be authenticated as human ancestors... why do you think such a high proportion of the fossils used to prove 'evolution' come from this one specialty? Why do you think Niles Eldredge, a specialist in marine invertebrates, uses hominid examples rather than the vast record of fossil invertebrates to argue the case for evolution?" (Pg. 62)
He observes, "Most readers of this book probably don't feel qualified to judge scientific disputes. For that matter, Richard Dawkins [The God Delusion] himself is a zoologist and not a biochemist, and he told me himself that he doesn't feel qualified to debate [Michael] Behe's scientific claims [Darwins Black Box]." (Pg. 79) He adds, "Behe is a Roman Catholic who has no religious objection to Darwinian evolution; his argument is simply that the Darwinian mechanism has no scientific merit in molecular biology. Neither [critic] contradicted Behe on any scientific point. Their objections were entirely philosophical, or based on a failure to comprehend the concept of design." (Pg. 80)
Those who enjoy Johnson's other books will surely enjoy this (unless they are looking for a MORE "detailed" presentation, which is admittedly not his aim in this book).
28 of 43 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
Phillip Johnson's day job is teaching law at UC Berkeley. He moonlights to defend God against evolution-oriented scientists who he feels are disrespecting God by ignoring Him in doing their work and writing about it. Johnson believes "the common people" understand evolution better than scientists - who are too hung up on atheistic materialism to the detriment of God. He feels science is too important to be left up to these scientific elite, but they and the courts unfairly block anyone who wants to remedy things. Johnson aims to correct this situation in two ways: 1) Plead his case for the hand of God and against [other than minimal] evolution, partly through books like the present one, and 2) Use his knowledge of the law to get around the separation of church and state in order to insert God into schools. In both enterprises he uses the pseudonym `Intelligent Design' for God. The term fits in with his assertion that life must have been designed, and the term should be easier than `God' to place into schools.
Near the end of the book, Johnson tells why he is dedicated to disproving evolution and instead moving God to the forefront.
· Denying the reality of God is contrary to reality.
· As long as the secular intellectual world is irrevocably committed to materialism, then Christian doctrine like supernatural creation and the resurrection are false by definition and can hardly survive academic scrutiny.
· Materialism [unfortunately] sets us free from sin - by proving that there is no such thing as sin. There's just antisocial behavior. The Truth Jesus referred to was Himself, and the burden it frees us from is the sin that takes us away from our right relationship with the Father.
In other words, evolution is incompatible with the Bible and all it entails. This, coupled with the many problems Johnson claims evolution has, means that Christians must not cave in or bend to the materialistic philosophy they are constantly subjected to; they must stand up for what is right. A major purpose of the subject book is to tell young people, along with their parents and teachers, how to do this. After all "the most important question we face [is]: Is there a God who created us and cares about what we do?" Some of the reasons Johnson gives for the hand of God instead of evolution are:
· The scientific evidence is strongly against the [American National Association of Biology Teachers] claim that a purposeless material process is our true creator.
· Not a great many transitional fossils have been found. The basic animal groups seem to have appeared suddenly during the Cambrian explosion. [`Suddenly' is a relative term here; it covers millions of years].
· Animal breeders have been unable to create any distinct species.
· DNA is essentially information, which can't assemble itself out of thin air - it must come from some outside agency.
· Evolutionists resort to faulty reasoning. You must use your "bologna" detector" to look out for: selective use of evidence, appeals to authority, ad hominem and straw man arguments, begging the question, lack of testability, vague terms and shifting definitions, and the universal human tendency to believe what we want to believe. Some may feel the pot is calling the kettle black here.
Most of the other reviews here are essentially pro and con arguments for these and other objections Johnson raises to evolution.
I think any fair-minded person would agree that God has lost a lot of clout over the last 500 years or so in the sciences. It used to be that God could, through the agency of the church, burn up or torture people for claiming that the earth went around the sun, in direct contradiction to Psalm 93. Newton was allowed to put the earth in orbit, but believed God created the solar system a short time back, and tweaked it now and then to stabilize it. Also, I suppose Newton and just about every contemporary European believed God when he had written that the species they saw were those He had created from scratch.
Darwin presented a case for species having evolved, but a lot of people haven't gone along with him. In the 1920's, 20 or so state legislatures debated giving creationism and evolution balanced exposure in the schools. Two followed through: Arkansas and Louisiana. Tennessee went further and banned evolution outright in the schools. Johnson obviously detests the movie "Inherit the Wind", about the Scopes trial in Tennessee. He spends a whole chapter and more complaining about how it slammed those against evolution (which it did).
Now days, most scientists, in carrying out their work, go strictly by naturalistic (often defined by Johnson as `atheistic', Godless' or `materialistic') evidence, as they see it, and don't concern themselves with how God may or may not be involved. Many churches don't contest evolution; instead rendering unto scientists what is science. Trying to speak up against the "dogmatic teaching of Darwinian evolution" can get you dismissed as a religious fanatic. God has therefore motivated Johnson to step into the breach.
Johnson has a very easy to read writing style. This book of his is short - 131 pages including endnotes; Johnson's earlier books went into more detail. There is no index.
Near the end of the book, Johnson tells why he is dedicated to disproving evolution and instead moving God to the forefront.
· Denying the reality of God is contrary to reality.
· As long as the secular intellectual world is irrevocably committed to materialism, then Christian doctrine like supernatural creation and the resurrection are false by definition and can hardly survive academic scrutiny.
· Materialism [unfortunately] sets us free from sin - by proving that there is no such thing as sin. There's just antisocial behavior. The Truth Jesus referred to was Himself, and the burden it frees us from is the sin that takes us away from our right relationship with the Father.
In other words, evolution is incompatible with the Bible and all it entails. This, coupled with the many problems Johnson claims evolution has, means that Christians must not cave in or bend to the materialistic philosophy they are constantly subjected to; they must stand up for what is right. A major purpose of the subject book is to tell young people, along with their parents and teachers, how to do this. After all "the most important question we face [is]: Is there a God who created us and cares about what we do?" Some of the reasons Johnson gives for the hand of God instead of evolution are:
· The scientific evidence is strongly against the [American National Association of Biology Teachers] claim that a purposeless material process is our true creator.
· Not a great many transitional fossils have been found. The basic animal groups seem to have appeared suddenly during the Cambrian explosion. [`Suddenly' is a relative term here; it covers millions of years].
· Animal breeders have been unable to create any distinct species.
· DNA is essentially information, which can't assemble itself out of thin air - it must come from some outside agency.
· Evolutionists resort to faulty reasoning. You must use your "bologna" detector" to look out for: selective use of evidence, appeals to authority, ad hominem and straw man arguments, begging the question, lack of testability, vague terms and shifting definitions, and the universal human tendency to believe what we want to believe. Some may feel the pot is calling the kettle black here.
Most of the other reviews here are essentially pro and con arguments for these and other objections Johnson raises to evolution.
I think any fair-minded person would agree that God has lost a lot of clout over the last 500 years or so in the sciences. It used to be that God could, through the agency of the church, burn up or torture people for claiming that the earth went around the sun, in direct contradiction to Psalm 93. Newton was allowed to put the earth in orbit, but believed God created the solar system a short time back, and tweaked it now and then to stabilize it. Also, I suppose Newton and just about every contemporary European believed God when he had written that the species they saw were those He had created from scratch.
Darwin presented a case for species having evolved, but a lot of people haven't gone along with him. In the 1920's, 20 or so state legislatures debated giving creationism and evolution balanced exposure in the schools. Two followed through: Arkansas and Louisiana. Tennessee went further and banned evolution outright in the schools. Johnson obviously detests the movie "Inherit the Wind", about the Scopes trial in Tennessee. He spends a whole chapter and more complaining about how it slammed those against evolution (which it did).
Now days, most scientists, in carrying out their work, go strictly by naturalistic (often defined by Johnson as `atheistic', Godless' or `materialistic') evidence, as they see it, and don't concern themselves with how God may or may not be involved. Many churches don't contest evolution; instead rendering unto scientists what is science. Trying to speak up against the "dogmatic teaching of Darwinian evolution" can get you dismissed as a religious fanatic. God has therefore motivated Johnson to step into the breach.
Johnson has a very easy to read writing style. This book of his is short - 131 pages including endnotes; Johnson's earlier books went into more detail. There is no index.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
good biology supplement
All sides of a discussion need to be addressed for good scientific method to be employed. This book is the other side of that coin
Published 3 months ago by David Brundage
1.0 out of 5 stars
Disappointing
The writing style was dry, indirect, and not persuasive. There is some science, but its scant and not well argued since it is drowned by so much whining about the state of public... Read more
Published 9 months ago by Chrystal Bobbitt
5.0 out of 5 stars
Perspective on Darwinism
This is a good book for students, parents and other adults alike who are looking for perspective on the claims of Darwinism. Read more
Published 13 months ago by K. W. Lowery
5.0 out of 5 stars
Great Book for What it Is
This book is not meant to be an in-depth, complete scientific argument against Darwinism and the like. Read more
Published on May 12, 2011 by Charliene Damore
1.0 out of 5 stars
A two-way street
Those who praise this book should ask themselves two questions.
First, how open is Phillip Johnson's mind? Read more
First, how open is Phillip Johnson's mind? Read more
Published on May 5, 2011 by John D. Muir
1.0 out of 5 stars
Like most other books attacking Darwin and...
...the theory of evolution, this one misses the entire point...science is a system wherein a theory is proposed and hypotheses based on that theory are then... Read more
Published on October 16, 2010 by R. Taylor
5.0 out of 5 stars
Engaging and Enlightening
I recently was confronted from atheists about my faith and was blasted because of my lack of understanding about evolution. Read more
Published on August 2, 2010 by sherene
1.0 out of 5 stars
Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds
This book is another lame attempt to present mythology as science it is another reminder that the forces of darkness are still trying to turn the clock back to the dark ages.
Published on June 21, 2010 by Thomas F. Policastro
5.0 out of 5 stars
We are done with dogma
The phenomena of dogma is what keeps people from buying into a philosophy, be it religious, political, or scientific in nature. Read more
Published on October 31, 2008 by Michael Trapp
1.0 out of 5 stars
No real content here.
Johnson never gets to the details of his arguments. The book is simply an attempt to shove Christianity onto science. Read more
Published on September 17, 2008 by Stephen B. Gray
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
Listmania!
So You'd Like to...
Look for Similar Items by Category
- Books > Christian Books & Bibles > Christian Living
- Books > Christian Books & Bibles > Theology
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Philosophy
- Books > Religion & Spirituality > Religious Studies > Science & Religion
- Books > Science & Math > Evolution > Organic
- Books > Science & Math > History & Philosophy
