Darwin on Trial (2nd edition)
by Phillip E. Johnson
copyright 1993 - InterVarsity Press
As I stated on my main review page, I'm a zoologist (in training, actually) so I tend to side rather strongly with Darwin. I believe that my acceptance of Darwinian evolution is based on an understanding of the issues and evidence involved. I know that the theory isn't perfect (no scientific theory is) and it may need some major work to bring it all together. However, I do understand that the whole theory could be overthrown by a new, more accurate theory (as Newton was by Einstein) but I don't believe that the ideas presented in this book are the ones that are going to do it.
This review is going to consist of a chapter-by-chapter commentary, with specific replies to points Johnson makes. It will end with an overall conclusion, giving my impression of the book as a whole and the arguments that make it up. As these sections are written, I'll add links here to let you skip to the sections you want to read.
My Rant
Note: This rather long rant is not necessary to reading the rest of my review. This section deals with my disagreement with some of Mr. Johnson's ideas in a more general way. Feel free to skip right to the review, by clicking here.
Let me also say that I had the opportunity to hear Mr. Johnson speak here on the campus of the Ohio State University in the fall of 1994. He was taking part in a debate with several other faculty members, who I unfortunately do not remember. This event took place in my first couple of months as a graduate student, so I went because the topic interested me, without any idea that the ideas were so pervasive in society. The series of lectures of which this debate was just one were called the "Veritas Forum" and the general impression that I got was that the ideas being presented by Mr. Johnson and some other speakers with similar ideas were "veritas" (the latin word for truth) while other people's ideas were not. I have to say that this irked me, just due to the way that it was presented. Science is not a search for truth. There is no final, objective truth that any true scientist could develop and prove so as to say "There, now I have proven the basis for X". In fact, the whole basis of the scientific method is that theories, hypotheses and even laws are tentative, with the potential that they may be overthrown by new, better-supported ideas. So hearing about a series of lectures presented to show us the "truth" upset me somewhat, especially in regards to the idea that what I was studying was flawed by an outdated, incorrect idealogy.
Unfortunately, since I didn't take notes, I have no record of the debate between Johnson and the other panelists; I only have my subjective impressions left over from 3.5 years ago. My strongest impression was the confusion I felt over Johnson's insistence that "philosophical naturalism" would have to be abandoned before science, particularly biology could be successful. Since he never bothered to define this term in the talk, I was left wondering what the heck he was talking about. Having since read his book, I have a more clear understanding of this term and what he meant, which I'll deal with in my comments on the book.
The other confusing point was the lack of supporting evidence shown by Johnson. In the end, his belief seemed to be that we should do things the way that he said, because he said so. When he said that biologists should accept that a creator could have intervened in the process of life, we should not question him. We should just accept that god could have been involved and start thinking of ways to include a deity in our theories of the world. Unfortunately, neither in his speech nor in his book did Johnson present any evidence that god is a reasonable factor to include in a scientific theory. Does evolutionary theory have problems? Yes, I would agree, strongly, but to claim that since there are errors in this theory (either by nature, or by the way it is applied) you should discard the theory and just posit that god was involved is ludicrous. In the end, when science studies the world, it asks questions of nature, and since a god would be, by definition, outside of nature, science has nothing to say about him/her. Science must deal with natural evidence of one sort or another - chemical reactions, fossils, observations of natural populations, measurements of physical constants etc. - and anything that isn't within nature cannot be studied. In this way, science is dedicated to naturalism, the "philosophical naturalism" that Johnson so opposes, but all of science is based on this idea, and to attack only evolutionary biology is not only foolish, it's hypocritical. If you feel that science is doing a bad job with its restriction to naturalism, then you should start with Astronomy and work your way through to Zoology. Since alphabetically, evolution comes after some of the other sciences, I expect that it won't be attacked first. It seems that the only reason that evolution is getting attacked so vehemently, is that it conflicts with some people's religious beliefs. Unfortunately, just because a particular theory conflicts with your religion, doesn't make the theory wrong...
So far, I'm adding the chapter reviews as I get time. While I have read the entire book, I just haven't had time to transcribe my notes into a legilible, logical series of sentences. As I finish them up, I'll put there here asap! Any links that are active below indicate chapters that I have written the reviews for. If you come and some chapters are missing, come back in a few days, and I'll hopefully have another chapter added.
It's interesting to note that this book is published by InterVarsity Press, a division of the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, an organization on many college campuses. I have to admit I find that association interesting given Johnson's denial that his book is pushing the Christian god as the alternative to evolution.