Darwin on Trial

Before I read this book, I would have regarded "evolution" as highly probable and bordering on fact. Not that I particularly wanted to believe it. Nor could I offer any reasons for it being true, except the usual vague arguments about "peppered moths" and the fossil record which I absorbed in High School. And which Johnson dismantles in his book. But as far as I knew, everyone believed (important word) in evolution so it must have been true. Looking back, I can't believe that I bought ridiculous notions like the concept of fetal-development-as-a-recapitulation-of-human-evolution or Cricks theory of Panspermia. What a hoot! But the joke was on me...

In school, I majored in engineering because I thought it was the last bastion of truth. But what interested me most was what I now understand to be the philosophical assumptions of science. Johnson's lucid philosophical analysis of the debate regarding evolution/creation is a breath of fresh air. The philosophy of science should be mandatory in all schools of science and applied science. Many scientists quoted in the book cannot distinguish between science and philosophy. For example, Johnson quotes Carl Sagan's opening line to the "Cosmos" TV series: "the universe is all that was, is and ever will be."

This is an example of one of the most important themes in the book: the assumption of philosophical materialism or naturalism among scientists. The creation/evolution debate as presented by scientists and in the media is grounded on an assumption of materialism/naturalism. Intelligent design is ruled out a priori. Once this is recognized, and once an open-minded reader compares the correlation of the physical data to theories of creation (intelligent design) and evolution (materialism), one can only conclude that the data overwhelmingly supports the theory of creation, broadly defined.

Johnson's second most important contribution to the creation/evolution debate is his strategic refusal to advance specific creation scenarios. He recognizes that current scientific data points strongly away from evolution to creation. But strategically he realizes that before a debate can begin regarding the specific mode of Creation, evolution must be exposed for the intellectual fraud that it is and thoroughly discredited. That will take a long time.

I think Phillip Johnson's book "Darwin on Trial" will be regarded as one of the most influential books of the century. But like most intellectual revolutions, it takes a long time before news of its arrival reaches the general public. But his "wedge" strategy to attack evolution seems to be the right strategy, and judging by the growth of the new ID movement, he seems to be right on the money.

Thank you Phillip Johnson for your wonderful book.

You will know the truth and the truth will set you free...

Modern biologists have been blinded from seeing the truth by their incessant examination of the physical world. For a century or so, Darwin's crackpot theory about The Origin of Species has passed muster with biologists with respect to the so-called "fossil record", alleged "radiochemical dating", and the discovery of some crazy deoxyriboneucleic acid and its subsequent "sequencing". But Darwin - who doesn't even TRY to defend his discredited theory these days - has no hope of standing his ground when confronted with Phillip E Johnson's prosecutorial majesty. And I'm sure that Johnson has presented the evidence even-handedly, in the interests of a fair trail. Perhaps Johnny Cochran's flashier style would have been more entertaining - "If everything in the billion-year-old fossil record doesn't perfectly fit, then you MUST acquit!" - but Johnson's logical arguments are mighty compelling, and certainly convinced me that evolution is a bunch of hocus-pocus.

Alas, if only Darwin had gone to law school instead of the Galapagos islands, perhaps this whole debacle could have been nipped in the bud.

This book reveals how ground rules and word definitions are used to insulate the modern story of the unguided origin and development of life on earth from criticism. It shows how concern that an explanation be "science" has supplanted concern that the explanation be true. "What first drew my attention to the [creation-evolution dispute]", says Johnson in the book, "was the way the rules of argument seemed to be structured to make it impossible to question whether what we are being told about evolution is really true."

By examining the playing field on which the origins debate takes place, Professor Johnson makes an important and lasting contribution to that debate. The impact of his work is evident in the blossoming "Intelligent Design" movement. I found this book to be the most insightful and profound contribution to the origins debate I'd seen in a long time. The ten years that have passed since its publication have not dulled its importance.

Although most of his arguments are not new, Johnson brings the most important points together in a remarkably concise yet comprehensive format. He has a gift for summarizing the research in each field, then explaining and elucidating the implications of an issue, in just enough words to make it understandable.

He points out the mind-boggling complexity of structures like wings and eyes, but does not dwell on these descriptions like some critics, for he realizes that nearly all informed people agree that living things are that complex. The Darwinian Richard Dawkins writes, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose," but insists that "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning."

The premise that appearance can be misleading is not unreasonable. Scientists proved the appearance of the sun revolving around the earth to be an illusion. The problem, which constitutes Johnson's central scientific premise, is that there is no evidence that natural selection has the immense creative power Darwinians attribute to it. The Darwinian claim that the numerous theoretical difficulties with Darwinism are false is based not on scientific fact but almost entirely on pure speculation.

Johnson is not a scientist, but his central thesis is philosophical. Darwinians insist that considering divine intervention is unacceptable because science is committed to purely natural explanations. The problem is, how do scientists know *a priori* that natural processes alone are sufficient to produce the diversity of life on earth? Some may argue that this assumption is well-grounded, but scientists do not have the exclusive authority to tell us whether a *philosophical* assumption is true or not.

His scientific data are all from reputable scientific sources. To this date I have not seen a single valid criticism revealing a major inaccuracy in the data - and I have read many reviews of the book, some by prominent scientists. Stephen J. Gould's review tried to point out several minor inaccuracies, but he misquoted and distorted the book to make that point.

Most of Johnson's factual premises are tacitly conceded by Darwinians themselves. One example: David Raup, an internationally renowned paleontologist, made some remarkable concessions in an essay supposed to *refute* creationism. He wrote the following: (1) Darwin wrote that if smooth evolutionary transitions were not found in the fossil record, his general theory would be in serious trouble. (2) More than a hundred years later, after a tremendous expansion of knowledge about the fossil record, the situation is more or less the same. "We may actually have fewer examples of smooth transition than we had in Darwin's time because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail." (3) This can still be reconciled with Darwin's theory in various ways, and although Raup conceded that a more inclusive theory may take its place in the future, he rejected creationism largely because of the belief in a young earth.

While Raup's defense may have seemed reasonable, especially to those who take for granted that all creationists believe in a `young earth,' Raup directly implied that scientists accept Darwin's theory in spite of the fossil evidence. None of the anti-creationist literature with which I am familiar - and I am well-read on the issue - directly contradict what Raup wrote. But with rare exceptions, they try very hard to conceal this implication he was forthright about.

Johnson is careful to avoid certain fallacies earlier critics have made - such as the claim that natural selection is inherently tautological, that it involves pure `chance,' that evolution is `unfalsifiable,' etc. Some reviews of the book, such as one by Eugenie Scott, caricatured his arguments to make it sound like he'd just rehashed old discredited criticisms. In fact, Johnson repeatedly demonstrates an awareness of how Darwinians respond to criticisms of their theory, and he takes these well into account.

The biggest criticism I have of Johnson is his frequent vagueness on whether he is attacking just the theory of natural selection or common ancestry itself. Some proponents of intelligent design, such as Darwin's Black Box author Michael Behe, accept the doctrine of common ancestry. I agree with Johnson that Darwinians use the word `evolution' vaguely to suppress distinctions between different meanings of the term, but he also seems to be saying that common ancestry is too vague a doctrine to be evaluated independently of Darwinian natural selection. The book would be more persuasive if he was clearer where and when he is criticizing each doctrine.

Many of Johnson's articles and essays written after the book are worth reading, but he exhibits a certain shallowness in debating the scientific details of his position with Darwinians. Many other proponents of intelligent design - many of whom are trained scientists - while perhaps not as accessible, support his basic viewpoint with ultimately greater depth and clarity. I particularly recommend the following links:

http://www.arn.org

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter3.html

In 1991, "Darwin on Trial" staked out new ground against Darwinism. Today some critics accuse it of outdated science. Still, every scientific claim awaits being outdated from its inception. Endless scientific points and counterpoints are the predictable future once the essential unfalsifiability of both young-Earth scientific creationism and Darwinism were noticed. Still, critics attacking Professor Johnson's science miss or ignore his central philosophical achievement: the radical unmasking of Darwinism's Achilles heel, atheistic naturalism.

Science rightly embraces methodological naturalism. That is, observable natural phenomena demand natural explanations. Failure to attempt to propose theories and causes that remain within the boundaries of the natural universe abandons the very essence of physical science. Still, to employ an absolute presumption that only natural causes can possibly explain all phenomena embraces, not methodological, but metaphysical naturalism. In the case of Darwinism, an a priori commitment to atheistic materialism precludes all possibility of supernatural intervention in the cosmos. This constitutes philosophy, not science. Once committed to this philosophical posture, all changes in nature must flow from natural causes. If natural causes alone can account for the appearance of all new species, then naturalistic evolution becomes necessary.

No matter the objection raised against evolution, the naturalistic presumption demands a naturalistic explanation. "Good science" demands debunking of all opposing evidence, and insistence that complete evolutionary explanations have already been given - or are on the way shortly. Hence, the uproar against Johnson for daring to point out this unstated philosophical presumption in Darwinism's smug claims, which masquerade in the guise of "pure natural science." In "Darwin on Trial," Johnson exposes the fallacy and implications of metaphysical naturalism, thereby revealing Darwinism's logical weaknesses with devastating force. The book best speaks for itself, provided we realize that Darwinians will always seek to regain lost ground by challenging the recency of Johnson's scientific data and examples. Essentially, they fail to escape Johnson's relentless philosophical and logical attack upon their exaggerated claims of certitude.

Johnson tells us that he is "...not concerned in this book with addressing any conflicts between the Biblical accounts and the scientific evidence." (1991 hardbound edition, p. 14) Still, Darwinism has undermined Biblical belief, especially the Genesis account of Adam and Eve's origin. In my book, "Origin of the Human Species" (Sapientia Press: 2003), I demonstrate the compatibility of sound natural science with authentic Scriptural interpretation, including the historicity of Adam and Eve - and without recourse to young-Earth creationism. I cite "Darwin on Trial" to support my own exploration of evolution science's epistemological limitations, while showing that even should human origins intertwine with biological evolution in some mysterious manner, Scripture's literal historical sense need not be violated.

In "Darwin on Trial," Phillip Johnson has done an excellent job of revealing Darwinism's philosophically objectionable foundations as well as pointing to empirical data that appear to oppose Darwinian theory. "Darwin on Trial" should be a cornerstone of every informed debate about evolution.