Darwin on Trial

Publisher: InterVarsity Press
Number Of Pages:
Publication Date: 1993-11
Sales Rank: 51585
ISBN / ASIN: 0830813241
EAN: 9780830813247
Binding: Paperback
Manufacturer: InterVarsity Press
Studio: InterVarsity Press
Average Rating: 3.5

Phillip E. Johnson offers a reasoned and scientifically sound evaluation of the support for Darwinism--from fossil records to molecular biology.

Review:

Christian Biologist says Oversimplified

This book is preaching to the choir... and oh, by the way, I'm in the choir, as a Christian... but the biologist in me found this much too simplistic. Of course, I've studied evolution at the graduate level and Mr. Johnson's background is in law. Johnson makes some good points, but doesn't have a full-orbed understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of evolution. This book doesn't really help or hurt the case for God.

Review:

3 1/2 stars - Mostly Uninspiring.

To begin with, as other readers have said, this book does show it's age. Having read many interesting books discussing both sides of evolution recently, this fell a bit flat for me for one reason.

In the first few pages of the book, the author takes the time to inform the reader of his personal beliefs and religious background. He goes on to say that he is not arguing in favor of Intelligent Design but merely examining and questioning the various aspects of "Darwinism". The problem arises when the author builds a case for his point, a case that is well executed and insightful, and then leans on the crutch of a "Creator". To me, that smacks of ID and refutes one of the few positive things I might have taken from a book of this nature.

Review:

NOT A RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALIST ... JUST ASKING

I admit it - I've always thought some aspects of the whole evolution idea didn't seem to hang together. Phillip E. Johnson questions all of it in this book, which obviously has been controversial. But why not look at all the claims of evolution and ask for the proof? Does everyone who questions whether one species can really turn into another, or who doesn't believe life began by chance in some primordial slime have to be labeled a "creation science" religious nut?

Johnson says the fossil record does not support the "transitional" species that should have been found by now. Others say the fossil record does provide examples of these. Hard for us non-scientists to sort that one out. Johnson raises the issue of macro-evolution vs. micro-evolution. Can a new species appear sudenly, or are changes made very slowly over the centuries, in line with the uniformitarianism thinking of Darwin's day? Johnson does not think tiny changes over time can really account for the changes in the animals on earth going back to the beginning, as demonstrated through the fossil record.

I was disappointed that Johnson says nothing at all about the most controversial species change - that of human beings. In the infamous Scopes "monkey trial," the main bone of contention was the idea that man and monkey were relatives who both descended from a common ancestor. How and when did human become human and not simian? When I was a kid, we used to make jokes about "the missing link." No one talks about the missing link anymore, but if I'm not mistaken, no transitional creature between human and our common ancestor with other primates has been found.

I think the strongest part of this book is Johnson's contention that science has become a religion for many who buy into the total evolution theory. Science is supposed to be about testable hypotheses, but evolution is argued mainly from logic. We cannot travel back millions of years to see if chemicals coming together in some swamp became alive. We cannot watch the process of a dinosaur turning into a bird, even though the fictional Paleontologist in Jurassic Park believed the one species was the ancestor of the other.

It is obvious that some scientists are so wedded to their atheism that they start with the concept that all life is accidental, without purpose, the result of natural selection. Clearly, the concept of natural selection works within one species (animals that change color to match their environment and conceal themselves form predators, for instance), but Johnson rightly asks how one species becomes another. It's not ok to ask a dedicated evolutionist: What if you are wrong? But it is ok for them to ridicule any suggestion that there is a purpose behind the universe, that life is more than a chemical reaction, and humans are more than relatives of apes. Strict evolutionists cannot prove their claims, yet maintain that it's all true. Evolution does make some sense, and does have some evidence to support it, but absolute proof is not obtainable. Evolution is a theory, not a religion.

And speaking of religion, fundamentalists are entitled to have their say, but should not promote "creation science" (which is no science at all). I DO want to see children learn about Darwin and his ideas about evolution, which have been so influential, but I also want to have future generations that ask questions, think for themselves, and ask for proof about anything they are told they must believe. Johnson may be wrong in much of his criticism, but I applaud him for making a rational case against insistence that evolution, like any religious belief that is without proof, is a fact.

Review:

Poorly thought out and poorly researched

Science, by its very nature, can consider only natural explanations. Philosophers generally refer to this as "methodological naturalism". Johnson's main point here is to argue that this unfairly excludes supernatural explanations. He clearly wants to redefine science in a way that allows supernatural explanations.

However, he fundamentaly misunderstands the very nature of science. Scientific progress ultimately depends upon the fact that there are regularities in the natural world -- if you drop a rock from the top of a building, it will consistently fall. Two atoms of hydrogen bonded to one atom of oxygen consistently produces a substance with particular properties. Matter does not spontaneously appear out of nothing. Recognition of (and understanding of) these regularities permits us to predict the outcome of future experiments. When these predictions are disconfirmed, we know that we need to refine our understanding of nature. The success of this process depends crucially upon our ability to "weed out" hypotheses that prove to be inconsistent with experiment. If a belief cannot be falsified by any conceivable observation, then scientific data become irrelevant.

A supernatural event is, by definition, something that is unconstrained by natural laws. To put it another way, a miracle need not follow any of the regularities that we have observed in nature. That is not to say that miracles don't happen -- it's just that they necessarily lie outside of what science can investigate. If a belief is completely unconstrained by natural law, then we can't falsify it, which makes experiment and scientific data irrelevant.

Suppose you brought a team of physicists back in time to the day that Jesus walked on water. Ask yourself what kind of experiment you would perform to figure out how He did it. You might, for example, see whether or not He was walking on a sandbar that isn't visible from a distance. Or, you might ask whether He is held by some kind of invisible suspension system, etc. In other words, you would test NATURAL explanations! It's not because you are excluding the possibility that it was a miracle -- you may, in fact, have a deep conviction that it WAS a miracle. But, if you make it your mission to investigate it scientifically, the only experiments that even remotely make sense are the ones that test natural, falsifiable explanations.

Therefore, when scientists exclude supernatural explanations, it is not an evil crusade to promote atheism as Johnson naievely thinks. Methodological naturalism is simply the only way that science CAN operate. Johnson seems to fundamentally misunderstand this basic concept.

Johnson does, indeed, apply a lawyer's thinking to the issue of evolution. That is, he is an ADVOCATE for a particular point of view that he held before the evidence was even presented. That type of approach is great in a court of law, but lousy in a scientific laboratory.

http://mihd.net/fwc5e8