As promised, here is my first post for my review of Phillip Johnson’s book, Darwin on Trial.
The debate over the origins of life is raging on with no end in sight. For some that is positive news that the final answer has not been confirmed, that is, that the theory of evolution is not the final word, despite what some scientists might assert. There are several people to thank for the continuation of this debate; one of those individuals is Phillip Johnson. Along with several other publications, Johnson’s Darwin on Trial became an instant force with which to contend in the scientific community as he took Darwinists to task over their assertions that evolution is a plain fact yet have not provided empirical evidence to support their bold claims.
Johnson’s opening chapter presents the debate as a legal argument and he begins by establishing the legal setting in which he hopes to examine the claims of the evolutionists by the rules of legal argumentation. This is no small task considering the terminology used in the debate is often clouded with layers of ambiguity that make it difficult to analyze, much less argue, a particular point in the debate without wondering whether what one is asserting is both exact and meaningful. For example, the term “evolution” can refer to a variety of concepts such as adaptation, mutation, microevolution, macroevolution, and speciation through the accumulation of micromutational adaptations. Having a keen awareness of this ambiguity is central to anyone’s desire to enter the debate with the intent of seeking answers, offering alternative theories, or insisting on empirical evidence for blanket assertions made by evolutionists. Use of the term “creation” is no less fraught with uncertainty since it can refer to concepts ranging from sudden creation to creation by progressive development, which is the idea that a supernatural intelligence initiated life yet allowed further development to progress through materialistic processes such as natural selection. Johnson wisely demonstrates that the terms “evolution” and “creation” contradict each other only when the former is defined as fully naturalistic evolution unguided by a higher intelligence and the latter is defined as sudden creation. This is particularly important when evolutionists claim that their ideas are not mutually exclusive to belief in God. If creation is defined as sudden creation, as mentioned above, then evolution most certainly does exclude religious ideas of this nature.
Adding to the ambiguity inherent in the debate, is the perception of those supporting creationist theories for the origins of life that they are foolish and ignorant of both scientific method and fact. Part of the source of this perception includes the famous Scopes “monkey” trial of the 1920s wherein William Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor representing the creationists, took the stand as an expert on the Bible and was made to look like an intellectual buffoon by the very capable Clarence Darrow. Coverage of the trial included satire and labeling in the media such that scientists appeared to be the objective fact finders in search of truth while the creationists were merely religious fanatics intent on controlling the masses with outdated beliefs. Use of the terms “science” and “religion” shortly thereafter amounted to a comparison between truth and fantasy.
Johnson points out that his interest in the debate is not scientific but rather, as a lawyer, he is keenly aware of the necessity of establishing clear and appropriate rules of argumentation yet in the debate over origins, this necessity has been largely ignored. In this case, the established rules make it impossible to question the validity of evolutionists’ claims since science and religion are separate realms of knowledge, according to scientists. However, in the cases of evolutionist representatives Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, scientists often ignore this declaration of separation by their regular pronouncements concerning religion. In his examination, Johnson hopes to answer the question of whether evolutionists know exactly the mechanisms by which species can or do change into others. To date, Darwinists have continued to claim that natural selection and evolution occur, but have given little to no empirical evidence of the process and are without significant features in the fossil record, such as transitional forms, that would give credence to the theory.
In my next post, we’ll answer the question, “What is natural selection?”
