Customer Reviews

Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds

5 star:		(40)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(50)

 

 

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.

At the heart of this book Johnson seems to be making one very basic point: Darwinism is a religion, NOT science.

Now that's pretty strong stuff - inflamatory even. So consider this comment by Richard Dawkins made, not in the heat of a debate but in the course of an ordinary interview for one of the UK TV listings magazines:

"Thanks to science we now have such an exciting grasp of the answers to such [profound] questions, it's a kind of blasphemy not to embrace them."
Radio Times, London, 7-13 January 2006. Page 27.
(We aren't told what "profound questions" Dawkins has in mind.)

This is precisely the kind of materialist argument (Johnson apparently regards "materialism", "naturalism" and "Darwinism" as being more or less synonymous) that Johnson is addressing in his book rather than evolution as such.

So what chance does Johnson have of making his point?
Going by the reviews on this page - not a lot. And for one very simple reason that was illustrated by an incident that happened to me whilst I was reading this book on the train coming home from work.

Seeing the title of the book an elderly gentleman in the seat opposite waited till the train was close to his station, then made a series of comments and promptly exited before I had a chance to reply (had I wanted to).

As far as I could make out, without having any more knowledge about the book than it's title the elderly gentleman was able to tell, without a shadow of a doubt, that:

- The book was ignorant rubbish
- I must be some kind of religious nut for reading it
- What I need to sort me out is a really good exposition on evolution such as the one he hopes to get published later this year (a bit like the lesbian who only needs an hour with James Bond to convert her to lifelong heterosexuality!)

1. Given that Johnson is dealing with matters philosophical rather than science itself, and that Ultra Neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins has made it so abundantly clear that his own evangelicalism is indeed quasi-religious (Dawkins - described as "today's most influential evolutionary biologist" - makes numerous appearances throughout the book), it seems that Johnson is neither ignorant nor talking rubbish but is addressing a real situation.

2. Since when does one have to be a religious nut in order to question the status quo? And isn't it worrying that so many people nowadays have been brainwashed into believing that evolution is so sacrosanct that it can only be discussed by those who agree with the establishment view?

As Johnson points out, we have reached a point in history - in the US, at least - where the unthinkable has not only become possible but has become a fact.

"Suppose Mr. Cates had enough influence and lung power to railroad through the State Legislature a law that only Darwin should be taught in the schools!"

In 1955, when Henry Drummond first made that suggestion to Matthew Harrison Brady on the opening night of the play "Inherit the Wind", it probably seemed too far fetched for words. 50 years later it is a simple statement of fact!

So how, as Johnson asks, do you have an intelligent debate when either side has so thoroughly stacked the deck (Johnson is equally opposed to a Christian/religious monopoly of the discussion)?

One previous reviewer asked why Christians should be opposed to evolutionism if it is so full of holes. And Johnson's answer is simple: Because dissenters are virtually barred from expressing their doubts, regardless of whether they are inside or outside the hallowed halls of academe.
By a bizarre piece of logic the neo-darwinists have closed the door on honest debate thus:

- Since evolution is a fact, no intelligent person would want to question any part of it
- Therefore anyone who does want to ask questions must be a religious nut
- And religious nuts can't think straight to save their souls
- Therefore it is unnecessary to answer any of the questions raised about evolution - by ANYBODY!

The real point of this book is that it challenges the reader to GENUINELY ask questions about the status quo and resist the brainwashing that is as prevalent in evolutionism now as it was in the Roman Catholic church when Galileo and Copernicus were getting it in the neck.

Whether the reader ends up agreeing with Johnson or not is almost incidental. Making sure that students are being taught to think critically - the empty claim made by far too many educators at present - is a far more important first step. Mindless faith in a god is no more commendable or worthwhile than blind faith in evolutionism.

I would also recommend Richard Milton's book "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" (ISBN 0-89281-884-0) for an indepth review of the kind of questions that evolutionists are avoiding by cutting debate off at the knees.
(Milton is NOT anti-evolution and has no religious affiliations. Nevertheless, as a living demonstration of Johnson's claims, he has been extensively misrepresented. misquoted and villified for daring to question the orthodox line on evolution.)

This book is a great "down to earth" summary of the problems of Neo-Darwinism. Showing that there is no evidence for (macro)evolution , but overwhelming evidence for Intellegent Design. If you are not the technical type and want just a run down of his thesis, along with some other good nuggets of information, Then I recommend this book.

There are two glaring problems with Philip Johnson and his ilk: They start from the logical fallacy that to discredit Darwinian evolution would somehow prove creationism right. WRONG. They would still have to produce evidence for their theory which they will never be able to do. Secondly, they try to disprove evolution by pointing to the fact that there is not enough evidence in the fossil record. Not enough evidence? This is humorous considering that they are advocating a position that has zero evidence to support it. The Intelligent Design crowd is not interested in the truth. They are only concerned with the metaphysical implications of scientific materialism. If you prefer consoling delusions to truth, then this book is for you. Otherwise, it is a waste of time.

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.

I recently was confronted from atheists about my faith and was blasted because of my lack of understanding about evolution. I actually began reading several other sources of information before reading Johnson's book but I found once I came to it that I had already dealt with some of the sly tactics of skeptics to grind my views into the dirt. Johnson's book was completely readable and flowed naturally to make his point in every chapter.

His thoughts are engaging yet simple to understand. I think this book is important to anyone who needs or wants a basic understanding of the concept of evolution and have found yourself going in circles in any discussions with evolutionists or skeptics. You can't argue something you don't understand and you most certainly shouldn't completely disregard something as relevant as evolution if you don't understand it.

There is nothing wrong in searching for truth. As uncomfortable as where you search might take you, you have to open yourself up to Truth...as Johnson said in his book. Truth with a capital T is God's truth!

I give this book 5 stars for it's relevant, important content, and its simplistic delivery of information on a subject that can be complicated to grasp.

This book is not meant to be an in-depth, complete scientific argument against Darwinism and the like. It is instead an introduction to 1) the problems with the macroevolution argument as science (it is, rather, a philosophy), and 2) exposing the type of illogical argument a person will run into from the macroevolution crowd. It is written for the high school student and typical, every-day, non-scientificly-minded parents. An introduction to this topic. As such, I wouldn't expect the information presented to be covered so thoroughly as some of the reviewers apparently expected. For the audience and reasons he wrote this book, Phillip Johnson did an outstanding, 5-star job. I enjoyed the book, which was easy enough to read, well-sited, and fair-minded. I am now prepared and looking forward to going on to more thorough books addressing these issues at an even deeper level.

This is an interesting book, but the author is a bit selective in his facts. This is not entirely his fault, because it's a weakness inherent in attacking science from a religious standpoint. Of course, as is often pointed out, the theory of evolution is simply that --- a theory, which is constantly subject to revision as new facts come to light. But this is precisely the difference between scientific theory and religious doctrine: The scientist (in principle, at least) starts with an open mind and feels free to modify his or her theories as new facts emerge, whereas an author like Johnson starts out with his mind made up and shoehorns the facts to make them fit his position. Ironically, in light of the title of this book, it's Johnson who is unable to maintain an open mind. This is not in any way to suggest that religious "truths" are less meaningful than scientific "truths." In fact it could be argued that it is religion which points to the ultimate truth, beyond the realm of the senses, whereas science is limited to the relative truth, i.e., that which can be empirically observed and quantified. In my opinion Johnson actually trivializes religion by implying that religious insights can have no real value unless they can be proven scientifically. In any case, this will always be a futile endeavor, because the real purpose of religion is different from that of science. In trying to discredit the theory of evolution because he apparently sees it in opposition to his personal religious views, Johnson is forced to focus on just those facts which support his opinions and to disregard the rest. This hardly satisfies the definition of an "open mind."

Phillip Johnson is one of the most popular standard-bearers of the modern Creationist movement, but this new book adds nothing that hasn't been refuted long ago. Ironically, Johnson does offer several very useful methods any skeptical person should use to examine any sort of scientific claim, but then proceeds to use the very same nonsense tactics he argues against as his own thesis! Hilarious! He warns about blanket, unsupported assertions then proceeds to make assertions about the fossil record that are both sweeping and patently false-- even though he has been taken to task on these very same statements before! Elsewhere in the book, he argues the merits of fact-checking, but conveniently fails to cite the sources of the quotes he uses in his own defense. Truly astounding. Frankly, Johnson is typically a bit more cogent than this and one has to wonder if "Defeating Darwinism..." wasn't just hacked out in a short space of time. I suppose that the best merit of the book is how easily Johnson's own suggestions for developing critical thinking skills can be applied to the book itself. The result would be that the reader is likely to just toss the book in the round file-- a bit wiser and a few less pennies in his pocket.

I read this book on request of a friend who thought it might change some of my skeptical views regarding the involvement of a supernatural religious influence in evolution. Sorry, but there is nothing in Johnson's writing that even begins to present a rational argument for a creator in Darwinian Evolution. If Johnson wants to have some supernatural god placed inside the evolutionary concept, he needs first to fully refute the biblical story of creation and admit that Genesis is nothing more than myth. Of course Johnson will not do that, he simply says that the biblical days were longer than what we recognize today.

I understand his frustration when high school science students are introduced to evolution and Johnson's god is not mentioned in the classroom. He should take comfort that the thousands of other gods invented by man since the beginning of civilization were not mentioned either. Can you imagine how angry Johnson would be if Zeus or Vishnu got the credit and his god was left out without even an "honorable mention"?

Johnson's anger is misdirected. He needs to put a mirror on his "baloney detectors" and reflect on the dogma of religion that makes unproven statements about the natural world. When evangelical religion makes pronouncements about the natural world that are not based on fact, it runs the risk of being in conflict with discoveries of science. Religious dogma unfortunately does not provide a mechanism to deal with the acquisition of knowledge through the scientific process of discovery. Religion is stuck with maintaining the status quo and seeing its dogma based house of cards tumbling on quicksand. Religion can have a positive influence on society regarding spirituality and faith, but its ventures into science are misdirected energy.

Just because Johnson finds some irreducible complex structures does in no way offer any proof that "god did it." His explanation of critical thinking conveniently lacks any method of gaining reliable knowledge and the origins of belief. Just because a major portion of the population believe in the creation story does not make it factual. Similarly, the intensity of one's belief has little relevance to its validity. Excellent reviews of critical thinking and scientific method by Stephen Schafersman PhD. can be found on the internet. For the sake of his clients, I hope that Johnson presents better arguments in the courtroom than he has in this book. Do not waste your time or money on this book. Instead read "River out of Eden", by Richard Dawkins for a good perspective on the process of evolution.