Status
Available
Call number
Description
Is evolution fact or fancy? Is natural selection an unsupported hypothesis or a confirmed mechanism of evolutionary change? These were the courageous questions that professor of law Phillip Johnson originally took up in 1991. His relentless pursuit to follow the evidence wherever it leads remains as relevant today as then. The facts and the logic of the arguments that purport to establish a theory of evolution based on Darwinian principles, says Johnson, continue to draw their strength from faith--faith in philosophical naturalism. In this edition Johnson responds to critics of the first edition and maintains that scientists have put the cart before the horse, regarding as scientific fact what really should be regarded as a yet unproved hypothesis. Also included is a new, extended introduction by noted biologist Michael Behe, who chronicles the ongoing relevance of Johnson's cogent analysis. - Publisher.… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member PedrBran
An attempt to reduce science to an ideology which must be accepted on faith. Since Creationism has to be accepted on faith, the two are equivalent in that respect according to the author. Evolution has to be accepted by faith therefore. There is a type of lawyer who thinks any subject can be
To describe the book as shallow would be charitable. The scientific illiiteracy exhibited by the author is truly shocking. Useful to understand the peurile drivel this movement espouses and reveals the intellectual bankrutcy of modern evangelical Christianity.
Show More
discussed by means of logic alone without bothering to learn the actual subject. He is such a lawyer. To describe the book as shallow would be charitable. The scientific illiiteracy exhibited by the author is truly shocking. Useful to understand the peurile drivel this movement espouses and reveals the intellectual bankrutcy of modern evangelical Christianity.
Show Less
LibraryThing member tuckerresearch
A good telling of Darwinism's history in the U.S. with an emphasis on the courts.
LibraryThing member NoLongerAtEase
I recently found Darwin on Trial for sale at the local thrift store. Being familiar enough with Johnson the man and the Intelligent Design "movement" he helped to spawn, I figured it was worth my dollar.
I'm reviewing it because I think the critics often tend to abuse Johnson without really engaging
Johnson has two main objectives in DOT. First, he wants to show that we haven't obtained sufficient evidence for the view that natural selection is the mechanism by which species have evolved/emerged. Second, he wants to show that some version of metaphysical naturalism undergirds the scientific acceptance of Darwinian evolution and that many in the scientific community have written naturalism into the very rules of science.
Given these objectives and the purported success of the arguments used to meet them, Johnson then offers an argument, which I reconstruct as follows:
1. Given any general criterion for evidence, there is insufficient evidence that speciation is due to natural section.
2. Given metaphysical naturalism, natural selection is the best explanation for speciation.
3. Mainstream science is implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) committed to metaphysical naturalism.
4. Thus, mainstream science accepts natural selection as the mechanism behind speciation on philosophical grounds.
This reconstruction doesn't cover everything Johnson has to say, but I think it gets to the heart of his view.
Now, the question is, has he given strong supporting arguments for his premises?
On that score I have mixed feelings. Johnson is not a biologist and this is meant to be an accessible book, so the review of the evidence certainly leaves something to be desired. Nonetheless, I think there is a very important point lurking about in Johnson's evidence review. Consider: even with what evidence we have, natural selection is hardly established conclusively. Much of the purported evidence for natural selection seems to indicate common descent (Archeopteryx) but that there has been common descent doesn't tell us how, exactly, one thing turned into another. We're missing so many transitional fossils that we just can't fill in the details. Since we can't do this, we also can't rule out the possibility of other mechanisms for speciation.
The point I take from this is that we ought to practice humility when it comes to our pronouncements about evolution and how it fits into our broader view of the world.
I don't think Johnson or other ID folks have given us wholly compelling arguments for abandoning the evolution (qua modification by descent or otherwise) but they have done a good deal to expose scientific hubris and to jump start concern among laymen about just how much we can confidently say about our origins.
Now, as for Johnson's arguments about the relationship between science and metaphysical naturalism, I think he's right, in a sense. Many scientists are metaphysical naturalists but do not have any sort of worked out metaphysics or arguments to defend their metaphysics. Further, the view of mainstream science, at least as reported in the media and its organs (like the NAS), seems committed to metaphysical naturalism. There's a lot of philosophy lurking in the background of contemporary science and it is shameful that most of the time we ignore it and that most of our scientists are ignorant of it. Furthermore, I suspect that Johnson is right that the commitment to naturalism leads many scientists to express an unwarranted degree of confidence regarding the views that are clustered under "evolution", although I doubt that it's naturalism, and naturalism alone that supports the Neo-Darwinian view. The view does have some explanatory power (not to mention simplicity) on its side.
I should also note that while I think Johnson is correct to suggest that philosophy is doing a lot of heavy lifting for the evolutionist, I cannot agree with Johnson's method of imputing sinister motives these folks. He often uses rhetorical bombast to suggest that there is a veritable naturalist conspiracy to uphold natural selection in spite of contradictory evidence. This kind of stuff is unnecessary and gives the book over to some of the more base impulses of the intelligent design movement. Namely, this sense that there is an organized conspiracy of naturalists trying to rid the streets of all dissenters. While occasionally powerful, this rhetoric usually ends up closer to what you hear in 9/11 truth videos than what you hear in reasoned discourse.
I should also point out that the chapters of the book that focus on naturalism and the philosophy of science are not terribly well done. The introductory nature of the book can excuse this, but honestly invoking Kuhn and Popper isn't necessary for the main argument.
On the other hand, I think we might praise Johnson for at least trying to introduce a bit of philosophy into this area in a way that has led to fruitful results. Sure, his chapter on Popper isn't exactly elegant, but it does show uninitiated people that there difficult, open questions about the nature of science.
My verdict is that while the book isn't entirely successful, as the first real salvo of the intelligent design movement it deserves credit for raising the right kinds of questions in, mostly, the right kind of way. Johnson has shown that one needn't be a Biblical literalist to engage in public, critical reflection about evolution, and, what's more, some of the questions he raises remain worthy of our reflection.
I'm reviewing it because I think the critics often tend to abuse Johnson without really engaging
Show More
with his arguments. Steven Jay Gould, for example, called this book "an acrid little puff" but more or less left it at that. Having now read DOT, I think the it is a more substantial book than folks like Gould are willing to admit. Johnson has two main objectives in DOT. First, he wants to show that we haven't obtained sufficient evidence for the view that natural selection is the mechanism by which species have evolved/emerged. Second, he wants to show that some version of metaphysical naturalism undergirds the scientific acceptance of Darwinian evolution and that many in the scientific community have written naturalism into the very rules of science.
Given these objectives and the purported success of the arguments used to meet them, Johnson then offers an argument, which I reconstruct as follows:
1. Given any general criterion for evidence, there is insufficient evidence that speciation is due to natural section.
2. Given metaphysical naturalism, natural selection is the best explanation for speciation.
3. Mainstream science is implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) committed to metaphysical naturalism.
4. Thus, mainstream science accepts natural selection as the mechanism behind speciation on philosophical grounds.
This reconstruction doesn't cover everything Johnson has to say, but I think it gets to the heart of his view.
Now, the question is, has he given strong supporting arguments for his premises?
On that score I have mixed feelings. Johnson is not a biologist and this is meant to be an accessible book, so the review of the evidence certainly leaves something to be desired. Nonetheless, I think there is a very important point lurking about in Johnson's evidence review. Consider: even with what evidence we have, natural selection is hardly established conclusively. Much of the purported evidence for natural selection seems to indicate common descent (Archeopteryx) but that there has been common descent doesn't tell us how, exactly, one thing turned into another. We're missing so many transitional fossils that we just can't fill in the details. Since we can't do this, we also can't rule out the possibility of other mechanisms for speciation.
The point I take from this is that we ought to practice humility when it comes to our pronouncements about evolution and how it fits into our broader view of the world.
I don't think Johnson or other ID folks have given us wholly compelling arguments for abandoning the evolution (qua modification by descent or otherwise) but they have done a good deal to expose scientific hubris and to jump start concern among laymen about just how much we can confidently say about our origins.
Now, as for Johnson's arguments about the relationship between science and metaphysical naturalism, I think he's right, in a sense. Many scientists are metaphysical naturalists but do not have any sort of worked out metaphysics or arguments to defend their metaphysics. Further, the view of mainstream science, at least as reported in the media and its organs (like the NAS), seems committed to metaphysical naturalism. There's a lot of philosophy lurking in the background of contemporary science and it is shameful that most of the time we ignore it and that most of our scientists are ignorant of it. Furthermore, I suspect that Johnson is right that the commitment to naturalism leads many scientists to express an unwarranted degree of confidence regarding the views that are clustered under "evolution", although I doubt that it's naturalism, and naturalism alone that supports the Neo-Darwinian view. The view does have some explanatory power (not to mention simplicity) on its side.
I should also note that while I think Johnson is correct to suggest that philosophy is doing a lot of heavy lifting for the evolutionist, I cannot agree with Johnson's method of imputing sinister motives these folks. He often uses rhetorical bombast to suggest that there is a veritable naturalist conspiracy to uphold natural selection in spite of contradictory evidence. This kind of stuff is unnecessary and gives the book over to some of the more base impulses of the intelligent design movement. Namely, this sense that there is an organized conspiracy of naturalists trying to rid the streets of all dissenters. While occasionally powerful, this rhetoric usually ends up closer to what you hear in 9/11 truth videos than what you hear in reasoned discourse.
I should also point out that the chapters of the book that focus on naturalism and the philosophy of science are not terribly well done. The introductory nature of the book can excuse this, but honestly invoking Kuhn and Popper isn't necessary for the main argument.
On the other hand, I think we might praise Johnson for at least trying to introduce a bit of philosophy into this area in a way that has led to fruitful results. Sure, his chapter on Popper isn't exactly elegant, but it does show uninitiated people that there difficult, open questions about the nature of science.
My verdict is that while the book isn't entirely successful, as the first real salvo of the intelligent design movement it deserves credit for raising the right kinds of questions in, mostly, the right kind of way. Johnson has shown that one needn't be a Biblical literalist to engage in public, critical reflection about evolution, and, what's more, some of the questions he raises remain worthy of our reflection.
Show Less
Subjects
Language
Original publication date
1991
Similar in this library
DDC/MDS
| 575 JOH |
Pages
220