Darwinism Defeated? by Phillip E. Johnson

by Phillip E. Johnson

Darwinism Defeated? [Paperback] [Sep 01, 1999] Packer, J. I.; Johnson, Philli...

Mass Market Paperback

First published December 1, 1999

About the author

Johnson is an American born-again Christian lawyer and creationist.

Reviews

[Michael Davis.com]

Excellent! If you are going to read Philip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial" (or any of his other books), then you need to read this, to get a "fair and balanced" point of view (and here I am assuming most of the readers of Johnson's books will be Christians--who mostly likely will accept Johnson's conclusions, even before evaluating his arguments). This book provides a broader perspective on various Christian responses to Evolutionary Biology. Most of the book is a back-and-forth debate between Johnson and Denis Lamoureux, but especially valuable is the contribution by Michael Denton--since it was Denton's book (read in conjunction with one of Richard Dawkins' books) that started Johnson down the antievolution path in the first place! (see intro to latest edition of "Darwin on Trial"). Denton actually says some surprising things. In some passages, he come across sounding more like Stephen J. Gould than Philip Johnson. He actually defends evolutionary theory, and makes it clear that his critique is with Neo-Darwinism, not Evolution in general. He accuses Johnson of misusing the terms "Darwinsim" and "Evolution"--but then admits that he himself has been guilty of this! He admits that his first book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" should have been titled "Darwinism: A Theory in Crisis". He even goes so far as to state that he is

"...unaware of any serious systematic attempt by Johnson to show how the facts of biology, such as those of geographical distribution discussed above, can be accounted for more plausibly in creationist than evolutionary terms. Until he does this, academic biology will not take his antievolutionism seriously." (pp. 153-154)

Does Johnson successfully answer the tough questions that Lamoureux asks, or does he evade them? To answer that, you will have to read this book yourself.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A WRITTEN DEBATE BETWEEN CHRISTIANS, WITH ESSAYS BY SEVERAL OTHERS

Philip Johnson is, of course, a law professor at UC Berkeley; Denis Lamoureux is “a charismatic evangelical Christian who holds PhD degrees in both theology … and biology.”

Lamoureux [who describes his position as ‘evolutionary creationism’; pg. 14] states in the opening essay, “there are two radically different uses of the term ‘evolution’ today. Thus it is necessary to distinguish between: (1) a purposeful and designed process termed ‘teleological’ evolution---the position of some Christians and believers in God, and (2) a purposeless and chance-driven process termed ‘dysteleological’ evolution---the position of atheists, to which all Christians are firmly opposed. Johnson adamantly insists that this second sense of the term is the EXCLUSIVE meaning employed in the scientific community… I will argue that he not only overstates the case, but that he is simply wrong.” (Pg. 11)

He notes, “Johnson finds it incredible that legs could give way to flippers during the evolution of whales… a recent fossil find of [an] ancient whale… [with] small legs… a similar fossil finding of a snake with hind legs has recently been reported… It appears that snakes descended from aquatic reptiles that over time lost their legs in a similar fashion to the ancestors of whales…” (Pg. 23-24)

Johnson argues, “Lamoureux rules out the possibility of irreducible complexity without considering the scientific evidence. Why? He says that to consider the need for intelligent causes in biology is merely to place a hypothetical God in the gaps of present scientific knowledge… To argue this way is to commit the fallacy of begging the question…” (Pg. 51-52) He adds, “Lamoureux’s evolutionary creationism, like theistic evolution in general, therefore looks exactly like fully naturalistic evolution to objective observers… Evolutionary naturalists are not necessarily hostile to religious belief, provided God stays within the realm of the subjective and never invades the territory of science…” (Pg. 52)

Lamoureux replies, “I specifically raised scientific issues that Johnson deals with in his books (e.g., whale evolution) instead of making an appeal to my scientific specialty of the evolution of teeth and jaws. However, NOT ONCE in his rebuttal is the scientific evidence discussed in any substantive manner. Rather, he makes the characteristic sweeping generalization that the scientific data does not support the theory of evolution.” (Pg. 57)

Later, he asserts, “The greatest problem with the intelligent design movement that Johnson leads is that they have yet to offer a definitive theory of origins… in a lecture by Johnson’s colleague Michael Behe… I well remember… William Lane Craig’s… thrice-repeated question, ‘Well, if evolution isn’t true, how then did life arise?’ … Behe never even attempted to offer Craig an answer. This … typifies the problem with the intelligent design movement---they dismiss evolution, but offer no alternate model.” (Pg. 74)

Keith Miller observes in his essay, “Evidence for the relationship of birds to dinosaurs has been growing at a spectacular rate, particularly in the last few years. Well over 20 shared characteristics have now been identified between Archaeopteryx and a certain group of theropod dinosaurs… such as Velociraptor and Deinonoychus… and a newly discovered dinosaur has features of the limbs and pelvis that are the most bird-like yet known… Finally, in the last several years the discovery of new fossil birds from the Cretaceous has led to the erection of a whole new subclass of primitive birds. This new group includes several fossil specimens previously identified as theropod dinosaurs!” (Pg. 117-118)

Michael Denton argues in his essay, “At present there are flightless birds in South America, Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. These species… are clearly strikingly similar in many basic biological characteristics. If we are to explain this distribution in creationist terms, we must assume that God created each... species separately in each of the four regions in which they are found today. There is nothing very exceptional in such a postulate… until we realize… that these now separate geographical regions were once united in the great southern supercontinent of Gondwanaland more than 100 years ago. In other words, the present distribution … corresponds to an ancient continental pattern now long vanished… To explain the pattern in creationist terms, we must assume that God has for some reason created each different … species on each of the now separate regions that were once part of Gondwanaland. To explain it in terms of common descent, we must presume that the several living species are all descended from a common ancestral flightless species that once inhabited the great southern land before it began to split apart.” (Pg. 148)

He explains, “As is evident from ‘Nature’s Destiny,’ I view life and man as an integral part of nature. I reject completely the special creationist worldview that organisms are in essence artifact-like and that God assembled different living things as an engineer might assemble human artifacts. On the contrary I see the entire course of evolution as driven entirely by natural processes and by natural law.” (Pg. 152)

This book will be of great interest to Christians (and perhaps some others) studying the variety of possible positions to Christians, other than the ‘scientific creationist’ model.