Darwin on Trial

"Black box is a whimsical term for a device that does something, but whose inner workings are mysterious--sometimes because the workings can't be seen, and sometimes because they just aren't comprehensible."(1) Michael Behe"All the world's a stage.And all the men and women merely players;They have their exits andTheir entrances,And one man in his time plays many parts." Shakespeare - As You Like It, Act II, Scene VII wholeheartedly agree with Phillip Johnson's assertion about non-theists having a belief and "faith" in philosophical naturalism while, in my opinion, prematurely dismissing Christian theism with rhetorical slight of hand--retreating somewhat disingenuously into the rhetorical safe habour of "methodological naturalism" for example. What became very apparent as I read through the book is that non-theists, agnostics and atheists alike, tend to engage in double-standards when being critical of religion and of Christianity in particular. Johnson brillantly illustrates this by drawing an analogy between the "separate but equal" ideology of Jim Crow and similar obstructionist practices employed by Darwinists in their attempt to maintain an artificially constructed dichotomy between scientific belief/knowledge of facts vs subjective/blind religious belief in faith.(2) I recommend a survey of the many Amazon book reviews of Bart Ehrman's works, for example, which provide an overview of the prejudicial language and spirit of atheists and agnostics when they engage the religious domain; they attempt to setup a strawman argument premised on this very artificial dichotomy that has been so eloquently deconstructed by Johnson.You know, I always find it just a lil' humorous when non-theists, as a general rule, suggest to theists like me about the "subjectivity" of blind religious faith vs the empirical basis of the scientific method when history has recorded that most branches of modern science trace their roots back to contributions made by Christian scientists of 17th and 18th century Europe--this remains an undisputed "fact" of history.(3) Consequently, historically documented theistic influence upon the development of the modern scientific method runs contrary to the uninformed pretensions of Darwinian Fundamentalists(4a) who speak too dismissively about the irrelevance of religion while oftentimes naively interjecting fear-based rhetoric about "the god of the gaps"--yet another term co-opted and misused by darwinists. Afterall, perhaps "the most famous creationist microevolution involves the decendants of Adam and Eve, who have diversified from a common ancestral pair to create all the diverse races of the human species."(4b)First, the use of "gaps", I think, is projection by faithful Neo-Darwinists or even theistic evolutionists who know all too well about the "gaps"(5a, 5b) of transitional forms found throughout the fossil record; "gaps" which eventually led Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge to criticize neo-darwinian gradualism and to interject punctuated equilibrium as an alternative. Gould has actually confessed to having been "beguiled" by the Neo-Darwinian synthesis and even relunctantly referred to the "standard" Neo-Darwinian model as "effectively dead"(6a, 6b, 6c) in its explanatory power regarding discontinuities found in the fossil record; and you know what else, neither of these biological theories of evolution are expected to be subject to the rigorous scientific method of repeatability and verifiability because of their historical nature. That is, the "creative power" of the "Blind Watchmaker" thesis, that of mutation and natural selection(7a, 7b), can never be directly demonstrated but only assumed to have existed by necessity given that the alternative of intelligent design has been forbidden. Paradoxically, and yet another example of projection by the way, these same Darwinians have no problem with the use of Dawkins' "Blind Watchmaker" theme being ascribed to the evolutionary process all the while using "blind" soo dismissively toward Christian faith.Subsequently, Neo-Darwinists like Gould can only provide a very tautological defense to which Phillip Johnson aptly describes as "just so" stories--these tales are a tradition found within evolutionary history. In a 1992 Scientific American critical book review of "Darwin on Trial", Gould's only significant retort to this Johnsonian criticism is that of "consilience of induction". Likewise the "falsifiability"(8a, 8b,8c) of naturalistic evolution has engendered a history of philosophical chimera, which interestingly enough, manifests itself even today. How? Well, if non-theists were truly genuine in their pursuit of the falsifiability of Neo-Darwinism in the truest sense, there would be welcomed peer reviewed exchanges with Intelligent Design scholars and not political chicanery instead.Second, but introduce the historicity of the Gospels, and faithful believers in naturalism, like the liberal Jesus Seminar fellows and the New Atheists, will ask how can theists experimentally "verify" these alleged testimonies even though they dogmatically accept those non-repeatable, historical "just so" stories with "blind faith". In that spirit, I also find it somewhat ironic that many agnostics and atheists criticize theists who may sometimes make the mistake of positing universal negatives, propositions like disproving the existence of God which atheists then liken to disproving "invisible" minds and unicorns-etc, when many of these very same critics believe, as a matter of naturalistic faith, in disputed mathematical String Theory formalisms that "reveal" extra physical dimensions of reality which will forever remain "invisible" and that can never be experimentally proven; and soo, just perhaps believing that that which is "invisible" is not being so mindless afterall. Indeed, how absurd it is for scientific naturalists to insist that the cosmos can be understood by a rational mind but only if it was not created by a Rational Mind.(9a, 9b)By way of application, Johnson's philosophical insights into the history of naturalism only substantiates my accusation of the duplicitous nature of Darwinian Fundamentalism, in particular, as illustrated by the lack of rigorous scientific scrutiny given to String or M Theory by this cadre of New Atheists like Weinberg and Hawkins. To be fair, though String Theory has its detractors within the physics community, it's not just disputed mathematical formulations that distinguishes one physicist from another. Oh no, there's much more to it than just complex mathematical equations mythically shrouded within scientific authority. The real watershed among them, actually, is rooted in the way in which some apply their "faith" in apriori naturalism(10) to the disputed equations leading many to come to believe in what is mysteriously called a "Cosmic Landscape; very simply, Weinberg, Hawkins, and others posit the existence of an extra-dimensional realm which will forever remain both "invisible" and outside the vaunted truth-deciphering scientific method. This is an example of naturalistic faith run amuck.Consequently, it's fair to say that quantum cosmology is indeed mutating into a new cosmological species, that of mathematical metaphysics which currently postulates Calabi-Yau manifolds to accommodate some 10 to 26 extra physical dimensions, among other reasons, to rid the equations of infinities. These notable physicists, Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalists, are clearly proselyting about what is otherwise a "quantum cosmological heaven" to avoid the God of the Bible--a desperate attempt to avoid explaining the "fine-tuning" of the cosmos. They have morphed into mathematical metaphysicians because applying the standards of repeatability and verifiability, their continued belief in the existence of the Landscape can only be sustained by an apriori commitment to naturalistic-faith and dogmatism which remain impervious to standards of measure so frequently used to criticize Christian theists. How ironic this must be for non-string physicists to have to grapple with in the public square.Third, a relevant quote from Phillip Johnson, who is obviously one of my favorite Intelligent Design authors and founders, distills the essence of my book review:"That brings me to my third term, science. We have already seen that Darwinists assume as a matter of first principle that the history of the cosmos and its life forms is fully explicable on naturalistic principles. This reflects a philosophical doctrine called scientific naturalism, which is said to be a necessary consequence of the inherent limitations of science. What scientific naturalism does, however, is to transform the limitations of science into limitations on reality, in the interest of maximizing the explanatory power of science and its practitioners. It is, of course, entirely possible to study organisms scientifically on the premise that they were all created by God, just as scientists study airplanes and even works of art without denying that these objects are intelligently designed. The problem with allowing God a role in the history of life is not that science would cease but rather that scientists would have to acknowledge the existence of something outside the boundaries of natural science. For scientists who want to be able to explain everything--and theories of everything are now openly anticipated in the scientific literature--this is an intolerable possibility."(11)How prophetic Johnson has been for even now a renowned priesthood of physicists may be overheard faithfully reciting liturgical formalisms at an altar of the "Multiverse Temple of Calabi-Yau", "In the beginning was the transcendent Cosmic Landscape where all things are statistically possible." Continuing my saltational metaphor, the Landscape for me has become a kind of Cosmic Theatre of the Absurd with a cast of inimical characters like Schrodinger's Cat, Goldschmidt's "Hopeful Monsters" and Dawkins' Selfish Gene, Haldane's prebiotic soups, Cairns-Smith's clay crystals, Crick's extraterrestrial pan-spermia, spontaneous self-organization along with such voodoo phenomena as "spooky action at a distance". Perhaps even Camus could have told them so; could have warned about those "just so" theatrical stories of mythical, seemingly invisible missing links of so looong ago inhabiting one of many such statistical Landscapes of possibility. Strangely and how ironic then, while terrestrial saltation is regarded as an unorthodox darwinian belief by these earthly physicists, it has nonetheless become an acceptable doctrine of faith by these very same Neo-Darwinists whose clarion proclamations of Landscape saltations now form part of that just-so evolutionary tradition: a rhetorical tradition of acknowledged statistically insignificant eschatological worth.Is there any doubt as to why reviewing Neo-Darwinism has been more like a literary criticism of a rationalist version of Kipling's fables than a review of defensible theory. Such naturalistic faith in Shakespearean multiverse stages: surely yet another Darwinian Black Box premised upon scientific naturalism.(12)Such faith as this--indeed!"It is possible that in this domain biology, impotent, yields the floor to metaphysics." Pierre Grasse', The Evolution of Life"O, there be players that IHave seen play -- and heard others praise, and thatHighly -- not to speak it profanely.That neither having th'Accent of Christians nor theGait of Christian, pagan, norMan, have so struttedAnd bellow'd that I haveThought some of Nature's journeymenHad made men, and not madeThem well, they imitated humanitySo abominably." Skakespeare - Hamlet, Act III, Scene IIEndnotes(1) "Darwin's Black Box", p. 6(2) "Darwin on Trial", p.195;"Gunning For God: Why The New Atheists Are Missing The Target" by John Lennox, pp. 37-44: Darwinists, atheists, and agnostics mostly hold to an idiosyncratic, narrowly crafted view about the nature of faith; they routinely lament that "faith is a belief that isn't based on the evidence and is the principle vice of any religion". To that end, Darwinists use "scientific belief" phraseology which is based upon, they claim, "publicly checkable evidence"; that is, their use of the term "belief" is suppose to come across as being more neutrally-laden in that it may or may not eventually be warranted by the evidence. As Lennox has aptly put it, most Darwinists have adopted Mark Twain's spirited definition of what faith is--"believing what you know ain't true." Most theists, however, easily differentiate between the various meanings of faith, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, including faith which is blindly accepted and faith which is evidenced based. Ironically, the consequential effect of using this rhetorical device of "scientific belief" has led to their naturalism remaining a minority point of view.(3) Any honest student of history knows that individuals like Copernicus, Gailileo, Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Pascal, Linneaus, etc. influenced the developement of modern science as we have come to know it. I don't recall any of these theists invoking the "god of gaps" as used by atheists and agnostics alike.(4a) I borrow this term from Stephen Jay Gould as he blasted notable gradualists like Daniel Dennett, Robert Wright, and Steven Pinker in his essay entitled, "Darwinian Fundamentalists", found in the New York Review of Books, June 12 and June 26 1997. Visit nybooks.com/nyrev. This dispute occurred between Gould, the Revisionist, and Classical Neo-Darwinists like Maynard Smith.(4b) "Darwin on Trial", p.92(5a) "Darwin on Trial", Chapter 4: Johnson discusses the well documented "trade secret of paleontology"; that is, the "extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record" with "honest moments" of admission by Darwinists like Gould, Eldredge, Schindewolf, Stanley, etc. The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism, that of stasis and sudden appearance, for which Gould attempts to explain via the artifact theory or fast-transition theory. As an extension of the fast-transition theory with saltational overtures, "punctuated equilibrium accomplishes a feat of statesmanship by making the process of change inherently invisible. You can imagine peripheral isolation changes as much and as fast as you like, because no one will ever see them." The importance of this chapter is that Neo-Darwinism fails the fossil record test as it was Darwin himself who stated that the number of transitional intermediates would be both immense and inconceivable.(5b) "Darwin on Trial", Chapter 6: With the precision of a professionally trained Jurist, Johnson dissects the ambiguous third proofs of macroevolution provided by Gould. He examines such "crown jewels" of fossil evidence like Therapsida, Rhipidistians, Archaeopteryx, and the Hominids.(6a) "Signature in the Cell" by Stephen Meyer: By way of application, this treatise once and for all shows that there is no promise of establishing the first antecedent of Neo-Darwinian argumentation; that is, the quest for naturalistic, evolutionary-based biochemical explanations for the origins of life are, to borrow from Stephen Jay Gould, are "effectively dead" into the forseeable future because of the "digital information" embedded within the very fabric of the cosmos. And yet, Darwinists and atheists alike hold blindly to their naturalisic faith despite the evidence of intelligent design.(6b)"Darwin on Trial", Chapter 8: Johnson confirms Stephen Meyer's analysis of the dismal pre-biotic evolutionary theories which abound and emphasizes that "if Darwinists are to keep the Creator out of the picture, they have to provide a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life." Characteristically, Stephen Jay Gould is reported to have stated in his, "Justice Scalia's Misunderstanding", that evolution "is not the study of life's ultimate origin, as a path toward discerning its deepest meaning."(6c) "Darwin on Trial", Chapter 7: Johnson meticulously deconstructs the evolutionary molecular clock evidence by examining such doctrines as panselectionism and Kimura's neutral-selectionists arguments. He concludes that "what the molecular evidence actually provides is a restatement of the argument from classification. The molecular relationships that have been reported so far are generally but not entirely consistent with classification based on visible features."(7a) "Darwin on Trial", Chapter 2: Johnson illustrates the significance of how one of the two major mechanisms of evolution, that of natural selection, has developed from a tautology to deductive argument, to meager scientific theory(What's your alternative), and lastly into a philosophical necessity--with notable acknowledgments from authoritative evolutionists. Johnson persuasively demonstrates that natural selection has only evidenced variation within a species but not the creative power of the Blind Watchmaker i.e. causing species to come into existence in the first place.(7b) "Darwin on Trial" Chapter 3: Johnson illustrates how the second major mechanism of naturalistic evolution, that of mutations, is fraught with a history of "just so" storytelling; of modified saltation/macromutation concessions by Gould and Dawkins who tried to "split the difference between Goldschmidt, [Grasse',] and Darwin"--saltations being the equivalent of special creation; and a review of Goldschmidt's mythical, mutant "hopeful monster"; lastly, Johnson also demonstrates that even mathematicians at the 1967 Wistar Institute could not persuade leading Neo-Darwinists, like Medawar and Waddington, of the significant statistical "gaps" or improbabilities for both micromutations as well as macromutations occurring by chance.(8a) "Darwin on Trial", Chapter 5, p. 91: Johnson concisely distills the meaning of the "fact of evolution" or patterns of relationship in just one paragraph--"Evolution is descent with modification propelled by random genetic changes, with natural selection providing whatever guidance is needed to produce complex adaptive structures like wings and eyes. The creative power of natural selction is then assured because it is a necessary implication of the "fact" that evolution has produced all the wonders of biology. Recasting the theory as fact serves no purpose other than to protect it from falsification."*Philosophical Naturalism and Patterns of Relationship: Common descent with modification.*Neo-Darwinian Hypothesis: Common descent of species with variation produced by blind, purposeless watchmaker mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation with common descent operationally defined and evidenced by continuous-intermediate fossil remains found throughout the geologic record.*Null Hypothesis: Geologic fossil record evidenced by discontinuity, stasis, and sudden appearance of species.(See publications by Casey Luskin at the Discovery Institute for more technical analyses)*Empirical Testing: In the spirit of Popperian falsification, statistical analysis of geologic record regarding discontinuity vs continuity of transitional forms discovered.(8b) "Darwin on Trial", Chapter 12: In this remarkable chapter, Johnson draws from philosopher Karl Popper to help the reader distinguish between science and pseudoscience. Popper stated that a theory with genuine explanatory power makes risky predictions and to the extent that failure is a real possibility; progress is made not by searching the world for confirming examples but by searching out "falsifying evidence" that reveals the need for a new and better explanation. In Popper's words, "The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right." Simply put, scientific methodology exists wherever theories are subject to rigorous empirical testing, and it is absent wherever the practice is to protect a theory rather than to test it.Equally important, Johnson suggests, is that the point of scientific investigation is not to reject metaphysical doctrines out of hand, but to attempt where possible to transform them into theories that can be empirically tested. With respect to macro-evolution as an example of metaphysical naturalism, its central feature of common descent with modification continues to lack genuine empirical testing and verification. This is so because Darwinists presume that common descent can be explained based on taxonomic relationships/trees, at both morphological and biochemical levels. The relevant claim here for Darwinism, though, is not the supposed relationships but rather is it true that through purely naturalistic processes these relationships were produced in the first place. If Darwinism so postulated is false, then there is really no important scientific information to be gained as there remains continuing, overwhelmingly disconfirming evidence: where are all of those undisputed fossil intermediates. This form of tautology is one reason why attempting to falsify the Synthesis can be so difficult as Darwinists will often respond with, "What is your alternative?".(8c) "Darwin on Trial", Chapter 9: In this fascinating analysis of the rules of science, Johnson explains the difference between naturalism and empiricism; and as such, he demonstrates that the Neo-Darwinian synthesis is but only a modest empirical doctrine which explains variation within a species yet devolves into metaphysical naturalism when used in an attempt to explain how complex organisms came into existence in the first place. Interestingly, Johnson draws from philosopher Thomas Kuhn to illustrate that Karl Popper's "falsifiability" criterion is itself not without philosophical criticism i.e. "the problem with this criterion is that it is impossible to test every important scientific proposition in isolation. Background assumptions have to be made so that detailed statements can be tested. The Neo-Darwinian paradigm is made up of the background assumptions that define the current scientific worldview." Thus enters the temptation for tautology and just-so stories like punctuated equilibrium which remains disputed within Darwinian circles. See Reasons To Believe ministry for "evolving" creation models.And strangely enough, this penchant for story-telling is also used by critical race theorists in which biology has been supplanted by culture due to the extremely racist implications of natural selection as Darwin himself often wrote of "savages and lower races" as intermediate between animals and civilized people.(9a) "Darwin on Trial", p. 198(9b) Yet another disingenuous sentiment so often lamented by Darwinists is that Phillip Johnson is not an expert in the field of evolutionary biology and therefore is not qualified to issue a verdict upon Darwinism. The irony is, of course, that Darwinists have chosen the field of law to defend their metaphysical doctrines with legal precedent. How apropos then that Phillip Johnson's treatise adjudicates the "falsifiability" of Neo-Darwinism which remains strategically neglected by those who claim to be the guardians of the scientific method; google search "Ten Major Court Cases About Evolution and Creationism/NCSE".(10)"Gunning For God: Why The New Atheists Are Missing The Target" by John C. Lennox, p.28-29.(11) "Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law, and Culture", 1998, p.24. You may also wish to check out Access Research Network for other Johnson publications which deconstruct the philosophical foundations of science; see also darwinontrial.com.(12)"Gunning For God" by Lennox, p.20-21: Lennox describes a 2006 New Atheist conference attended by Weinberg in which an alternative source for morality was put forth; "God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway" by Lennox; "New Proofs For The Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy" by Robert J. Spitzer; "The Devil's Delusion" by David Berlinski.

I was asked to read this book. I was reluctant to do so, first of all because the 10-15 creationist books I’ve read in the past were written by authors who were clueless about the topic, they were obviously dishonest, and often spiteful in their tone. The fact that the author was a lawyer without any scientific credentials was a big red flag to me, and the title was another red flag. After all, a scientific thesis cannot be "tried" like a defendant in court, and not by a self-appointed judge. We have the continuously working peer review system for science. The fact that the book was endorsed by two theologians I am familiar with but don’t respect, and by no scientist, didn’t help. However, I agreed to read the book with an open mind nonetheless. So was my gut feeling correct? For the most part yes.Fortunately, this book did not feature claims such as that the steady growth of the world population and the thickness of the moon dust proves that Earth is 6,000 years old, or that the first and second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution, that Noah’s ark has been found, Neanderthals were disfigured humans, that genetically we are most closely related to pigs or fungus, or any other readily debunked false creationist claims. He didn’t ask; if we are descended from apes why are there still apes around? Luckily he spared us from those kind of doltish creationist arguments, which I commend him for. Unfortunately, it is still not a good book. It misrepresents the field of evolutionary biology and is full of falsehoods and questionable reasoning.The problems started already in the foreword (written by another author) where it is stated that Darwin’s theory of evolution relies on the “unstated assumption of materialism”. The assumption that a supernatural entity, God, does not exist. This is an old and thoroughly debunked claim, which I was not happy to see again. Science, including the theory of evolution, does not assume that nature is all there is; it merely notes that nature is the only objective standard we have. Supernaturalism is not ruled out a priori; it is left out because it has never been reliably observed. There are many scientists who use naturalism but who believe in more than nature. When the laws of gravity replaced the angels pushing the planets around it didn’t assume the angels didn’t exist, it just didn’t find them useful for explaining the motions of the heavenly bodies. As I read on I came to realize that this bizarre claim was a simplified version of the author’s chief argument.One way the author tries to make his case is to continuously misrepresent the evidence for evolution. For example, on page 76 (and in other places) he states there are no intermediate fossils (more correctly transitional) between land mammals and whales. He claims those gaps are evidence against evolution. To this I say; Pakitus inachus, Ambulocetus natans, Indocetus ramani, Dorudon, and a fossil group known as anthracotheres linking hippos with whales. He may be excused because these fossils may not have been known when he first wrote the book. However, he makes sweeping denials regarding the existence of transitional forms while keeping the reader in the dark about them, despite the fact that you can easily find several hundred transitional fossils listed in books on the topic, as well as on-line at places such as talkorigins or Wikipedia (invertebrates/vertebrates, fish/amphibians, reptiles/birds, reptiles/mammals, etc). The few transitional fossils he mention he dismisses by adding criteria for it to be considered such. In my opinion, the gap creationists should worry about is the lack of creationist research papers in respectable science journals.He insists that the lesser abundance of transitional fossils is a huge problem for the theory of evolution even though by itself it does not predict anything in particular regarding the abundance of transitional fossils. He incorrectly assert that Darwin said “that a truly complete fossil record would be mostly transitionals”. On the contrary careful analysis using Darwin’s words show that we shouldn’t expect that many transitional fossils. Scientists argue about transitional fossils because it is their job to argue and disagree. Trying to figure out how evolution proceeds is not a sign of “evolution in crisis”. This does not make it not-falsifiable. Evolution predicts other things and is falsifiable in other ways contrary to what the author claim. A Cambrian rabbit, a static fossil record, true chimeras, a mechanism preventing mutations from accumulating, or an observation of an organism actually being created, would all falsify evolution but transitional fossils not being abundant enough to match our expectations does not.He claim that there is no evidence for macro-evolution, or hardly any evidence for macro evolution. In the fossil record you can follow lineages; species of animals and plants changing into something different over time (including the so called transitional fossils). The entire sequence of rock strata show early life to be quite simple, with more complex species appearing only after some time. The youngest fossils should be those that are most similar to living species. As time passes the more transitional fossils we find. The fossil record is matched by the structure of DNA. There is additional evidence from DNA and additional molecular evidence. Speciation has been observed even though it is primitive. Suboptimality; our bodies and that of other animals are full of imperfections that make perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective but not much sense if we were created. Other types of evidence is vestiges, embryos, the structure of the DNA, and the powerful evidence from biogeography. The site talkorigins lists 29 types of evidence for macroevolution, hundreds of examples, thousands maybe millions if you count individual fossils, organs, DNA strands, speciation events, etc. The author attacks a few selected types of evidence by misrepresenting the value and interpretation of the evidence, and then he declares that no evidence to exist.Yes I am aware that the author is probably aware of the existence of this evidence but that he does not consider it evidence or perhaps pretends it is not evidence. Due to his metaphysical stance regarding “unstated assumptions of materialism” it appears he is trying to dismiss all of the evidence and applying impossible standards for the evidence. In addition I find withholding most of this evidence from the reader and not fairly presenting the little evidence he does mention to be dishonest. The layman reader is likely to come away with the wrong impression.He claims that the Cambrian explosion is evidence against evolution. Evolution seem to have been going at a higher speed during this time based on the fossil record. However, consider that Hox genes, which control much of an animal’s basic body plan, were likely first evolving around this time. Consider that Earth was coming out of a global ice age, and that as a result oxygen levels had sharply risen. It is not that strange. He mentioned none of that. On page 61 he either intentionally misrepresents punctuated equilibrium or thoroughly misunderstands the science.The author selectively and frequently quote out of context a few to him useful, what he calls “Darwinists”, to argue for his metaphysical stance and to make astounding claims such as that natural selection is a tautology (hint: it is not). He frequently misrepresent or misinterpret the words of Darwin. Basically, he tells us what those “Darwinist” think so he can attack them. Essentially an extended strawman argument. He tries to confuse us readers, by mixing up the controversy among scientists about how evolution took place, with a more general question of whether it took place at all. On page 154 he states “What they never find is evidence that contradicts the common ancestry thesis, because to Darwinists such evidence cannot exist”, which is a bizarre non sequitur statement. His rhetoric is faulty in many other places as well. He falsely paints scientists as an ideological in-club protecting their theory. In addition, the way he writes is very “creationist speak”; macro/micro-evolution, orthodox science, scientific dogma, priesthood (of Darwinism). I just can’t take that kind of language seriously.If you write a book on a scientific subject for which you have no peer reviewed publications and no expertise and you also don’t respect the language, the professionals, and the tools of the trade you normally get laughed at or ignored, well unless your intended audience are non-scientists with an emotional or ideological problem with the field, then you are guaranteed book-sales.Most of the book is the same old creationism that I’ve read before. He doesn’t add much except rhetorical excess. I learned nothing important from the book, it didn’t change my mind about anything, the argumentation was unconvincing, and I found the book to be dishonest and tiresome. The book was lacking the most ridiculous claims that I’ve come across previously, so at least he was able to recognize the worst creationist arguments, which is good. However, if this is “Unquestionably the best critique of Darwinism” as claimed on the front cover, then I don’t think I need to read anymore creationist books. One star!

Helpful and challenging.

Like to know that my goods will be delivered quickly and are as described.

Good

Molecular biologist Michael Denton considered this book "Unquestionably the best critique of Darwinism I have ever read". Professor of Biological Science Michael Behe calls it a "classic masterpiece". David Raup, Avery Distinguished Service Professor (emeritus) of Geophysical Sciences, Evolutionary Biology, and The Conceptual Foundations of Science at the University of Chicago, said in an interview with journalist Larry Witham, "Phil's done a superb Job. He's really done his homework. It's phenomenal the way he absorbed the field. Now, many people would say, 'He doesn't know anything. That's obvious from the first page.' That's often said without *reading* the first page." In a phone call to Thomas Woodward (Ass. Prof. of Communication, Science and Theology, Trinity College of Florida, Tampa) Raup said “Johnson’s work is very good scholarship, and of course, this is widely denied. He cannot be faulted; he did his homework, and he understands 99 percent of evolutionary biology.”Raup is a committed evolutionist, yet is fair-minded enough to give full credit to an opponent, a rare quality in committed evolutionists. Far more common is the attitude of those who charge the author with ignorance while ignoring his arguments. Such critics are more interested in reinforcing their prejudices than in truth.Reinforcing prejudices was exemplified by the editors of Scientific American. They published a scathing review by Stephen Gould of the book's first edition, that occupied four pages in their July 1992 issue, yet "refused to print my response or any letters from readers, although I know they received many." They obviously thought it was their business to shield their readers from the author's heresies. Such censorship was an insult to the intelligence of their readers, who should have been allowed to hear both sides of the argument and decide for themselves.The book deals not only with the scientific aspect of evolution, but also the equally important philosophical and social aspects. The chapters entitled "Darwinist Education" and "Science and Pseudoscience" are especially informative.The author carefully documents his sources in the Research Notes at the back of his book, so readers can check them out. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, so read the book, chew over its arguments, and make up your own mind.

A logical presentation of the tendency of Darwinism towards tautology.