Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (Paperback)

by Phillip E. Johnson (Author) "A student from a European university posted an e-mail message on a public Internet forum in order to explain how creationists and evolutionists can make..." (more)
Key Phrases: Defeating Darwinism, Inherit the Wind, Richard Dawkins (more...)

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 Description
Defeating Darwinism provides a new and powerful treatment on evolutionary naturalism for students, parents, teachers, pastors, and youth advisors. Phillip Johnson aims not just to defeat a bad theory, but to defeat it by opening minds to the truth.

Product Details

• Paperback: 131 pages
• Publisher: InterVarsity Press (July 1997)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0830813608
• ISBN-13: 978-0830813605
• Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 5.5 x 0.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 5.8 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.8 out of 5 stars See all reviews (108 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #49,770 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in these categories: (What's this?)

  #3 in	Books > Religion & Spirituality > Authors, A-Z > ( J ) > Johnson, Phillip E.
  #16 in	Books > Science > Evolution > Organic
  #66 in	Books > Religion & Spirituality > Religious Studies > Science & Religion

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

87 of 119 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars 3 stars for trying to keep the argument philosophical, September 30, 2000

By	John Rummel (Madison, WI) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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.

24 of 34 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars On the Button, January 22, 2006

By	Karl (England, Great Britain) - See all my reviews

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.)

18 of 26 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars God versus evolution, June 17, 2005

By	William O. Schwennicke (Cambria, CA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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.