Customer Reviews

Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law and Culture

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

A readable style, combined with short sentences and short essays overall, make this volume of book reviews and essays just the prescription for a busy person interested in some of the cultural and philosophical issues surrounding the origins debate. Johnson's basic position can be summed up by a sentence on page 61: "Darwinism is a lot stronger as philosophy than it is as empirical science." He demonstrates this fact by coming at it from several angles in the various articles. One of the interesting facts Johnson reveals is that some evolutionists use the same scorn and ridicule (rather than evidence) to attack each other as they do to attack the hated "creationists." The punctuated equilibria evolutionists call the natural selection evolutionists "Darwinian fundamentalists," while the natural selection evolutionists call the punctuated equilibria folks, "Punk eeks" and call the theory "evolution by jerks." Johnson believes that Darwinism has ten more years only before it gets relegated to history classes. Whether or not that is the case, the next ten years should prove very interesting in this arena.

Last year the Wall Street Journal reported that a Chinese paleontologist touring the U. S. was puzzled at the hostile reception he received in this country when he told of the lack of fossil evidence in China for Darwin's evolutionary theory. He said, "In my country, it's OK to criticize Darwin, but you can't criticize the government. In America, it's OK to criticize the government, but you're not supposed to criticize Darwin."

Reading Philip Johnson opens your eyes to the fact that although Darwin's work was insightful in certain matters pertaining to natural selection, his theory of evolution has almost no fossil evidence to back it up. Darwin admitted as much when he formulated his theory, hoping that future discoveries in the world's fossil beds would prove him right. So far, that evidence has never been forthcoming.

Many reviewers seem to take issue with Johnson for his lack of scientific credentials. However, we tend to forget that Henry Ford revolutionized personal transportation in this country, having had only an eighth grade education. It took a Nathan Pritikin, who lacked a formal medical degree, to get doctors in this country to admit that diet plays an important role in preventing heart disease. Even Albert Einstein flunked mathematics and never finished a legitimate Ph.D. Abraham Lincoln had only one year of formal schooling, yet was one of the most capable leaders this country has ever seen. To me, what a man has to say and the truth with which he says it carry more weight than how many degrees he has hanging on the wall.

"Objections Sustained" is an easy to read introduction to the ideas behind Johnson's problems with Naturalism. If that intrigues you, then go back and read "Darwin on Trial" and "The Wedge of Truth".

This issue is larger than just a battle between the status-quo scientific establishment versus Christian Fundamentalists. This is not a question of either-or. It is a matter of getting to the truth of how life really came to exist on this planet. Philip Johnson will do as much as any writer to stimulate your enlightened thinking on this subject. The real truth may turn out to be a little different than either our most brilliant scientists or the most devoted Creationists had in mind.

Some of Reviews of this book, while praising Johnson's efforts, conclude that he should stick to the field of his expertise, and not write about "science". We are then urged to read "Origin of the Species" and note how reasoned it is etc. I did read Origin of the Species a couple of times years before Johnson came along. One of the things that bothered me about it was it made such quantum leaps from simple premises to complex conclusions. The problem is with the logic and that is an area that a law professor is eminently equipped to analyze and criticize. It is not difficult to show flaws in logic when Darwin argues from micro changes within a species to the conclusion that macro evolution has occurred from one species to another. As a matter proof, Darwin's logic is flawed. He was lionized primarily because he gave the scientific community something to hang their hats on so that they could espouse a theory (now called fact) that could be substituted for a creation. Johnson should continue his efforts to expose fuzzy thinking.

This book is a collection of short essays and book reviews that Johnson has written over the past few years, mostly revolving around Darwinism and science related topics. Since the publication of his first book "Darwin on Trial" Johnson has taken a lot of heat from the scientific community and others (see the book reviews on this sight) for his anti-Darwin stance. Here he shows that not only is he not impressed by the opposition's objections, but he continues to point out the flaws, problems,and inconsistencies plaguing scientific materialism and Darwinism. He also points out how many in the scientific community resort to bad logic, and even near deception in order to present Darwinism as plausible to the public. Some of my favorites are "A Metaphysics Lesson" which deals with the public schools and controversy over the teaching of Darwinism, "Wundergadfly" which discusses the life and thought of philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend, and "The Storyteller and the Scientist" which deals with the afformentioned way in which evolutionists must resort to near deception to make evolution appear true. The fact that these are all short essays and book reviews means that most of them can be read in a short time period, although, if you're like me, you will find you have a hard time putting this down.

Essentially what Phillip Johnson zeroes in on, are the methodologies used among the more 'fundamentalistic' (shall we say) modern Darwinians, including Richard Dawkins. The systematic unity (or disunity) of a proposal is something which anyone can, in principle, render an effective opinion about, whether or not the 'anyone' is an expert in the field. After all, is Dawkins writing books to _convince_ people, or merely to get people to react a certain way? I should think it was to convince people (that's what Mr. D himself claims, anyway!<g>); which means that Dawkins & Co put their logic up for analysis by any and every reader. In this case, I am quite familiar with Mr. D's methodological style (having spent a year taking close notes of _The Blind Watchmaker_), and the reports I get of Dawkins' later books (so far) confirm that he hasn't changed.

Johnson is not, by the way, writing against the actual _science_; he's only pointing out that the actual science does not serve to bolster nor verify the (unnecessarily game-rigging) philosophical agenda which a lot of people (including Dawkins) try to attach to the science. One of the things which constantly amuses me about Mr. D is that his approach is really very similar (methodologically) to the superconservative 'creation science' crowd that he despises so much! At any rate, I can confirm that Dawkins has many very serious problems in terms of his logical structure (and I don't mean merely his dogmatic presuppositionalism); which problems consequently endanger the conclusions he's trying to reach. Johnson has essentially spotted the same problems I have seen, except not merely in Dawkins. I rated this essay collection 4 stars because a set of essays is not likely to present a cohesive argument itself (and this one doesn't, btw); and also because I'm somewhat unfamiliar with the some of the other people and topics Johnson speaks about, and so cannot verify his accuracy there. Also, I haven't yet read Johnson's more complete works, and so cannot yet comment on his own general competency in a straightforward argument. On the other hand, I was impressed with Johnson's willingness to allow credit where credit is due, and to express admiration of certain opponents.

Objections Sustained is a collection of essays by UC Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson. In the first half of the book, Johnson presents nine short chapters about Darwinists and Darwinism. Johnson first takes aim at the myth that science and religion occupy completely separate realms. This myth, formally approved for public consumption by the National Academy of Sciences, is refuted by famous proponents of Darwinism like Thomas H. Huxley, who viewed Darwinism as the antidote to letting the "Divine foot in the door."

Johnson also recounts other fascinating anecdotes from the history of the evolution debate. In 1995, the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) formally adopted a definition of evolution, which left it "unsupervised," implying that well, evolution was "unsupervised." This anti-religious definition left evolution exposed as a theory charged with implications for religion. Protestations from religious scholars went unanswered, until Eugenie Scott charged in to save the day by convincing the NABT to revise its language. The word "unsupervised" was removed from the definition, but as Johnson observes, "nothing was changed." Johnson also has his finger on the pulse of in-house debates among top Darwinists. Stephen Jay Gould and his punctuationalists are in a mud-slinging war the ultra-Darwinists who follow Richard Dawkins. They can't agree on how evolution happened, but they're sure it did. Moreover, amidst their name-calling, they agree that words must be kept light lest they fuel the fire for creationist criticism.

The second half provides various essays on topics related to books, culture, and law. Johnson, who was a clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren, explains how Darwinism-based law is trying to make religion irrelevant to our culture by consigning faith to the realm of fantasy. The wit of professor Johnson is only outpaced by his experience, insight, and scholarship in this fascinating and diverse collection of short commentaries.

Scientific Materialism is being assaulted by the very substance it allegedly holds dear, truth. It is interesting how "truth" is supported by dogma and emotional outbursts bordering on insane ranting,

Likewise it is indicative of the death throws of a dying World View based upon false hypothesis, when supporters of that view deem it necessary to "stuff the ballot box" of reputable book stores such as Amazon; 8 of 17 reviews at one star?

Do alternative opinions and the mere possibility that Scientific Materialism cannot stand the scrutiny of its own community frighten you so?

For a carefully written, down-to-earth discussion of the theory of evolution by natural selection and the empirical evidence both for and against it, I recommend that you read Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species".

It continues to amaze me how few people actually spend the time with this eminently readable book that it deserves. Unlike so many modern authors on both sides of the subject, Darwin wrote clearly, confronted the issues head on, and considered the empirical evidence against the theory just as carefully as he did the evidence for it. The only axe he had to grind was the relentless pursuit of the truth through careful observation and persistent study. He worked quietly and diligently to gather the evidence presented in the "Origin" for over 20 years, carefully dissecting and describing specimens from around the world, before his colleagues were finally able to persuade him to publish it in 1859.

The result is a careful, cautious scientific treatise that has revolutionized the study of relationships among living creatures--and says little (if anything) about the relationship between God and humankind. While Darwin himself may well have lost his own Christian faith during these years (possibly as a result of losing a beloved child to a childhood illness), he carefully avoided saying anything to damage the Christian faith of others. Generous to a fault, he consistently went out of his way to treat those who disagreed with him respectfully. I wish I could say the same of more writers on this volatile subject.

Do read Phillip Johnson's book. Johnson is an intelligent and engaging lawyer who writes well on a subject that matters to him a great deal. But--please--read Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" as well. I think you will be pleasantly surprised by the quiet, gentle and thorough scientist you meet in its pages.

Much better than the often psuedo-science essays of similar books (such as Sagan's Billions and Billions). Johnson cuts through the illogic of naturalism and relativism with the ease of a laser scapel. People whom read his works and still think fantasy writers like Dawkins are right, have abandoned all logic and rational methods.

So you've actually <<read>> Charles Darwin's classic "On the Origin of Species"? That's very good! Then you're ready for British geneticist Steve Jones' new book "Darwin's Ghost: The Origin of Species Updated", which shows clearly how many of the unavoidable knowledge gaps Darwin faced in his own research have been filled in by other research scientists in the 14 decades that have passed since he published "Origin".

Extensive training in logic and the law can indeed be helpful in launching a productive career in biology or the earth sciences. Charles Lyell, whose newly published "Principles of Geology" strongly influenced Darwin's five years of field research aboard HMS Beagle, studied law at the Inns of Court in London and was called to the bar, before he settled on geological research as his life's work. However, this book of Johnson's shows none of Lyell's passion for empirical study of the world around him. Where Lyell sought to explain what he actually found in the rocks, Johnson seeks only to explain away what he finds incompatible with his preconceptions. This is a crucial difference.

Read Lyell's "Principles". Read Darwin's "Origins". Read John McPhee's "Annals of the Former World". Read "Darwin's Ghost". Then come back and see if the arguments in "Objections Sustained" still hold water. Most of them won't.