Here Mr. Johnson lays out the beginnings of his argument. He starts with an error (not a good start IMO) by stating that evolution is taught as a theory not a fact. However, he neglects to mention that these two words have different meaning in science than they often do in normal conversation. Basically, a theory is a set of hypotheses that have stood up to testing. A theory cannot be proven true, only disproven. A fact is an idea that it would be perverse to deny - for example that rain falls from the sky. In reference to evolution, it is both a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is simply that organisms change over time. It's been observed, it's been documented and to question it is perverse. I won't bother to repeat the observations here. If you're interested in some of the evidence of this sort, I'd recommend visiting the talk.origins web site. The same thing can be said about gravity - two objects attract one another in relation to their size and their distance. This is a fact. The theory of evolution seeks to explain how and why animals change the way they do. The theory of gravity seeks to explain the how and why of gravity as well. Just because something is a fact doesn't mean that there doesn't need to be a theory to explain it. This is an old claim, and it's been debunked so many times, that I won't waste more time one.
In his footnote on page 4, Johnson differentiates between creation-science, which he defines as the literal interpretation of Genesis as contained in the Bible including a 6 day creation, and creationism, which he defines as the belief in an old Earth where some gradual evolution occurs, but the process is initiated and controlled by a Creator. Unfortuately, throughout the entire book, he never gives any suggestions for how one could tell what the Creator was controlling.
Because Johnson is a lawyer, he of course is interested in the legal arguments put forth in favor of evolution vs. creation. He states that because he is a professor of law "I know something about the ways that words are used in arguments." (p. 8). He objects to the definition by the National Academy of Sciences of creation-science as non-scientific because it relies on attempting to disprove evolution (negative argumentation). A negative argument that seeks to prove a point by proving the alternative to be false. In the evolution debate, creationism is usually presented as the (only) alternative to evolution. However, logically speaking, even if creationists were to prove evolution wrong, that would not mean that creationism is correct. That is an incorrect belief for two reasons. The first reason is that just because one alternative is false doesn't mean that the second is true. It's perfectly possible to have two wrong ideas. The second reason this is a problem is because there's no reason to say that evolution and creationism are the only two alternatives. Creationists tend to be Christians, and as such their idea of creation always involves the Biblical account. Of course, given that there are plenty of other creation stories besides the Christian one, there is no reason to believe that it's correct (assuming you prove evolution false) unless you begin by assuming that Christianity is the correct answer. I think all the people of other religions would have something to say abou this...
Of course, Johnson is quick to point out that many prominant Darwinists are quite happy to state that religion has been proven false and evolution is the only answer. Of course, this is an irrelevant argument. Just because a scientist chooses to speak on religion doesn't mean that science is invalidated. There is always a problem when someone chooses to speak outside their expertise. Everyone has an opinion, and should be allowed to express it (even law professors (^: ). If a scientist steps outside the bounds of his/her knowledge, doesn't mean that you have to accept it without any criticism. Once again, this is a worthless critique of evolutionary theory, while it is a valid claim about some evolutionists, it says nothing about evolution in general.
On pages 10-11, Johnson goes on to quote some scientists and social scientists on evolution. One interesting quote comes from Irving Kristol (whom is identified as a "social theorist" whatever that is). Apparently Kristol claims that evolution by natural selection is only valid for variation within species. This is utter claptrap. Changes in species have been observed in both the field and the lab, so this claim is baseless, and to even make it shows a painful ignorance about the most basic information in biology. Sad really. Kristol is then cited for saying that the evolution has a religious aspect to it. Hmmmmm....saying something is a religion doesn't make it so. Once again, there are some evolutionists who speak of evolution in religious terms, but that doesn't make it a religion. He also observed that there is not always a consensus in evolutionary theory. Fine. Show me a science where everyone agrees on exactly how it works and you'll find a science that doesn't have much going on in it. There are plenty of areas where more research is needed and there are competing theories for how evolution might work (at least in some cases) but that hardly means that the entire body of evolutionary theory has been destroyed. I've sat through many seminars where various theories were presented as possibilities to explain the evolution of a particular trait, but just because the theories didn't agree doesn't mean that the people who devised each of those theories is thinking that evolution is destroyed. Johnson is making the common mistake of assuming that disagreements among scientists are a sign of flaws in the basic science.
The end of this chapter Johnson uses to say why he's qualified to point out all the errors in evolution that we scientists have missed. He says:
"I am not a scientist but an academic lawyer by profession, with a specialty in analyzing the logic of arguments and identifying the assumptions that lie behind those arguments. This background is more appropriate than one might think, because what people believe about evolution and Darwinism depends very heavily on the kind of logic they employ and the kind of assumptions they make. Being a scientist is not necessarily an advantage when dealing with a very broad topic like evolution, which cuts across many scientific disciplines and also involves issues of philosophy. Practicing scientists are of necessity higly specialized, and a scientist outside his field of expertise is just another layman" (p 13). Let me say with all due respect to Mr. Johnson BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Sorry. I don't know how anyone could write that sentence without laughing so hard he fell out of his chair and sustained a concussion. For a lawyer to say that a scientist is too specialized to study a topic that cuts across many scientific disciplines is the height of arrogance. Please Mr. Johnson, you've just stated y our specialty is in analyzing the logic of arguments. Unfortunately, unless you're also trained in the facts behind the arguments, your knowledge of logic is of little value. In the end, you're just as much of a layman as any one else, perhaps more so because a scientist could at least have the training to know what the facts are behind the argument.
In the end, Johnson states he's a Christian but he's trying to evaluate the scientific evidence on its own merit, without any reference to religion. Right. We'll see how well he's able to do that...