Book Review: Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson

Regnery Gateway Publication 

Year-1991

Place –Washington (USA)

Pages -188, index

Phillip Johnson is a professor at the University of California's prestigious Boalt Hall School of Law. His book has attracted a lot of attention, reportedly selling 40,000 hard-back copies. Darwin on Trial is an antievolution book, not a scientific creationism book; this book certainly establishes his credentials. It complements the anti-evolutionism of the scientific creationists, and provides fuel for those who want to get evolution out of school classrooms.

The second chapter is talking about the natural selection through which the evolution has accrued. And third and fourth chapters are talking mutations and fossils. The fifth chapter is about evolution. Vertebrate sequence is talked in fifth chapter. The molecular evidence is discussed in chapter seven. Chapter eight is about pre -biological evolution. The rules of science and Darwinism are explained in the next chapters.

The author considers Evolution as naturalism.  Therefore Darwinism is fully naturalistic evolution, involving chance mechanisms guided by natural selection. In naturalistic evolution God’s intervention is excluded. He claims that Darwinian evolution is based not upon any incontrovertible empirical evidence, but upon a highly controversial philosophical presupposition”.  Johnson argues that naturalistic evolution is not scientific but is rather a dogmatic belief system held in place by the authority of a scientific realm

As for Darwin that the species came out naturally and from one species another came. But for john there is no evidence about what Darwin says. Because, over the whole millennia no new species have been born. The comparative study of sera, haemoglobins, blood proteins, and interfertility show that natural selection can never happen. There still is no satisfactory detailed mechanism for producing large enough, non-lethal variation of the DNA to produce a new species in a single attempt, and it remains an act of faith on the part of evolutionists that there is some way for it to have happened bit by bit.

 Johnson says that Evolution is a naturalistic theory that denies  any supernatural intervention.  The scientific  evidence  for evolution  is  weak but   the   philosophical    assumption   of  Naturalism   dogmatically   disallows consideration  of the Creationist's  alternative  explanation  of the  biological  world. Therefore,  if divine  interventions  were  not ruled out  of court,  Creationism  would win over evolution .Johnson  says that theory  of naturalistic  evolution,  which...  absolutely  rules  out  any  miraculous  or supernatural  intervention  at  any  point.  Everything  is  conclusively  presumed  to  have happened  through  purely  material   mechanisms  that  are  in  principle  accessible  to scientific investigation,  whether  they  have yet been  discovered or not .

First, Johnson defines evolution as if it were an ideology: evolutionism

Evolutionism to him is a philosophy that excludes the possibility of divine intervention occurring during evolution. Therefore evolution itself is an incorrect explanation of the history of the universe.
One of the main arguments that Johnson brings is fossil. According to the fossil collection that we have, there is no possibility of evolution. Because Macro-evolution suggests that it is very gradual and one species comes from other. But fossils that we have have no connection as the evolution describe. According to the evolution there must be connection between each fossil. Even when the old species disappear it is pretty same as they were. It is also true with the new species, which appears in well-formed form. So now the evolutionist should provide the fossils for their theory to be proved. Since it is not possible for them to provide the proof it is obvious that the evolution is not possible.so there must be a power which could have created the all the beings in its kind with purpose. Therefore we have the evidence to the creation according to the bible but not to the evolution.

His goal, of course, is to discredit his version of Darwinism, which stresses slow, gradual evolution Johnson wants to prove that Darwinism is not science but an outgrowth of materialist philosophy. He does not recognize theistic evolution as a common compromise between the facts of science and the desire to retain a religious perspective.
Darwin on Trial attacks evolution by natural selection in an attempt to bolster a theology based on a personal God who created humankind for a reason, and gave us a purpose. It does this by trying to convince the reader that evolution did not occur, and that Darwinism, as a mechanism, is inadequate to explain how descent with modification could have occurred. The arguments are recycled arguments from the discredited "scientific" creationists, although they are presented with great style and persuasiveness.
Johnson worries greatly that children will learn evolutionism rather than "just" evolution, and then lose their faith in there being a purpose for life. Johnson reflects the anguish expressed by many traditional Christians who fear impact of evolution when it will be proved as true,

Johnson thinks that Christian children are being taught evolutionism rather than just science. But there are no good data showings that the college or high school teacher goes along with the teaching of evolution occurred, and here's how it happened  with therefore you must give up your belief in God. My personal experience is that this is rare; Johnson's worry is that dominates.

Johnson is concerned with the implications of evolution. Although he states in his book that theistic evolution (evolution that is God-directed) is possible. He accepts that the earth is old, but rejects evolution, thus he is perhaps describable as an old-earth creationist. His concern with evolution is primarily religious: if evolution by natural selection (Darwinism) really happened, then it is not possible for life to have purpose and for the universe and Earth to have been designed by an omnipotent, personal God. He feels that life would have no meaning, and moral and ethical systems would have no foundation.

Thus his goal in Darwin on Trial is to demonstrate that Darwinian natural selection is impossible; therefore evolution didn't take place; therefore his theological views are preserved. He stresses that Darwinism is inherently an atheistic, naturalistic philosophy.

Posted in: Reviews