Darwin on Trial Epilogue: The Book and Its Critics
Johnson, in the second edition of Darwin on Trial, wrote an epilogue on the subject of the response to his book. He cites the fact that the book indeed was a force to be reckoned with in the scientific community as it was a subject of conversation and debate for another two years after its initial publication, which is quite rare for a book of this nature. The responses were varied.
Johnson received overall positive support from the Christian community for accurately presenting the debate over origins as a debate of ideas that oftentimes only presents one side of the argument. The book has been a tool in the hands of many people who now understand that terminology and definition are foundational to understanding and critiquing Darwinism in the public forum in ways that are constructive. Calling names and pronouncing divine judgments is never useful in the debate. Especially helpful is the need to dismiss errant perception of proponents on both sides of the debate such that accurate judgment of ideas can be rendered.
The response to Johnson’s book from the scientific community was both hopeful and critical – critical on grounds largely irrelevant to the basic premise of his book. Stephen Jay Gould, Johnson admits, was a person he both expected to be a formidable opponent responding to his view and one who would respond immediately. This, sadly, did not happen. A full year after the book’s publication, a scanty four-page article by Gould appeared in Scientific American, in which he blindly criticized Johnson for not understanding the essentials of evolutionary science and also appeared to ignore Johnson’s basic argument.
Michael Ruse, on the other hand, provides the hopeful response for which Johnson is thankful. Ruse is a Darwinist who sees in Johnson’s argument valid concerns over philosophical presumptions inherent to Darwinism and concedes that much introspection is needed within his science. The debate continues and Johnson has provided a robust tool such that a better view of science, compatible with some sense of divine authorship in creation, is conceivable. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, a view held strongly by the scholastics. Indeed, if God created the universe and we have the privilege of examining its laws, this is science of the highest form.
Author’s Note:
I hope you’ve found these posts useful for understanding the origins debate. My hope in presenting this content is that Christians will recognize there are answers to the tough questions regarding our origins and we need not fear the difficulties of apparent incongruity between science and the Biblical claims concerning the origin of life. The questions are real and substantive. One incorrect response is to dismiss them altogether as meaningless. This is an avenue of engagement with a lost world intent on “exchanging the truth for a lie”. This is our battle ground – the realm of ideas.
Another incorrect response is to simply speak louder and denounce scientific claims outright without hearing them. The scientific observations collected by Darwinists are no less real because we simply see them as false. They are real because it is all they see through the lens of their materialistic worldview. Part of our task as believers is to engage these ideas with truth, with the hope of painting a picture of a worldview that not only corresponds with reality but one that also allows for true science to take place – a science in which its proponents do not fear a reordering of their preconceptions. I believe Johnson has provided an immensely useful tool for Christians to see through assumptions, hasty conclusions, and hostility toward any theistic involvement in life.
“the fact that the book indeed was a force to be reckoned with in the scientific community”
What? Scientists either laughed at Johnson’s nonsense or they ignored it as they would ignore any other stupidity.
Johnson is a lawyer, not a biologist. He is not qualified to say anything about evolutionary biology.
Grow up mister. Evolution is a basic scientific fact, and your professional liars for Jeebus will never change this reality.
Mr./Mrs. Ape:
I appreciate your comments on my blog. To be quite honest, I’m never sure if my posts are ever read.
I sincerely hope you read the entire article since I do in fact cite one Darwinist whose attention was attracted by the content of Johnson’s book. So, to your point that the book was either ignored or laughed at is not accurate; at least two major conferences were held to which Johnson and several Darwinian scientists were invited to debate the subject of this book. Michael Ruse neither laughed at or ignored the book.
Secondly, might I ask your profession? I don’t want to assume too much but I’m guessing you are neither in the fields of evolutionary science, biology, or medicine – fields that might require so much of your time that you’d hardly find it rewarding to dredge such unimportant blogs as my own. If such is the case, are you yourself qualified to make the claims you’ve made above? If, as you assert, since Johnson is merely a lawyer and “is not qualified to say anything about evolutionary biology”, neither you nor I are qualified for that matter.
However, if I am mistaken and you are indeed within a field you claim would give credence to your assertions, then it still begs the question as to whether Johnson, or anyone who is not a scientist for that matter, can say anything contrary to the claims of science. And that’s the real sticking point, isn’t it? Do we not as human beings engage ideas outside the realm of our supposed lines of expertise and do so with a degree of intellect that is acceptable for engaging those ideas? If you’re honest, you’ll admit this point.
I would also like to urge you to understand that Johnson’s book was not intended as a refutation of evolution, but a direct analysis of the basic argumentation used to support the theory. As a lawyer, this is his field of expertise and his claims are supported by philosophers of science who sit on both sides of the debate who recognize that Darwinists presuppose too much in their observations.
I welcome your comments, but I would like to encourage you to be intellectually honest in your comments.
The irony is that Christians are accused of basing everything on “faith”, which presumes we use no intelligence or science, that science is opposed to Christianity, again a false presupposition, and that Darwinists use “fact”, which is quite an overstatement itself.
The fact is: it takes *more* faith to believe in an unobserved transition of species that has _no_ supportive fact than it does to believe Jesus existed. So, I applaud the Darwinist who has so much faith in evolutionary theory so as to maintain his position so vehemently. I have yet to get a satisfactory answer as to irreducible complexity wherein even Dumbski & Ruse’s book “Debating Design” fails to comprehensively answer the questions of this issue. There’s a great deal of double-talk and circular reasoning, but nothing concrete so as to explain away the design theory pointed to by anti-evolutionary critics citing irreducible complexity. To Kevin’s point, though, I am no biologist, so I defer to those of higher professions than mine.
Sorry, that was a typo, not sarcasm or ridicule — the author’s name is “DEMBSKI”, not Dumbski as I erroneously keyed in my earlier comment. D’oh!
Have you ever noticed that when an atheist refutes anything that remotely identifies God as author of creation they seem angry and antagonistic? Why is that?
It’s like they don’t believe in God and hate him at the same time.
Haha… Dude… whom ever Human Ape is sure hasn’t had anything else to say… guess getting your clock cleaned once is enough…