Book Review: “Darwin on Trial” by Phillip Johnson

For years I had seen Johnson’s numerous books on evolution floating about church libraries, and the private libraries of many Christians. The appearance of many of these books have been published in such a way that I think they were marketed to appeal to fundamentalist-type Christians, and so I rolled my eyes every time I saw them. “More Fundy literature plaguing Evangelicalism, great.”

Little did I know that Philip Johnson isn’t some backwoods ignoramus with an axe to grind, he’s a tenured professor of law at Berkeley university. Generally, the first thing I do with books is look into the qualifications of the writer to speak to the topic he’s presenting. Lawyers know a lot about sound and unsound arguments, so though Johnson’s profession isn’t in the sciences, I know I’m dealing with someone who doesn't merely know how to reason well: he has made a career out of teaching people how to do so. I was quite impressed also to learn that even Johnson’s opponents respect him, and give him a hearing. A good place to start my studies.

Some Strengths of Johnson

Philip Johnson’s main line of attack is to point out that Evolution is inadequate to explain the scientific data -this is exactly what I wanted to hear: not that evolution is inadequate, but that if it is inadequate, it needs science to demonstrate it to be so: arguing against evolution in the public square from a religious basis tends to get drowned out in fruitless hollering at or over each other’s presuppositions.

I also found it very informative to learn that the primary opponents to Darwin’s theory in Darwin’s day did not come from clergy, but from Paleontologists. The Paleontologists considered Darwin’s theory sufficiently refuted by the fossil record, which demonstrated long periods of stasis, and not the change Darwinism predicts. Johnson argues that the Paleontological record today is largely the same as what it was in Darwin’s day: we have more fossils, and more confirmation of stasis. I’ll leave that claim as it is, and come back to this issue when I review Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth Miller.

Johnson advances many arguments from biology and Paleontology to demonstrate evolution’s inadequacies. Much to the chagrin of scientists, he proposes no alternative theory. This was in fact, the main argument advanced by proponents of Darwinism in Darwin’s day: “Despite a lack of support from the fossil record, what is your alternative explanation for natural history, dear paleontologist? That God created it? How is your explanation anymore scientific than Darwin’s?”

Is it fair to shoot holes in someone else’s theory and yet have no proposed alternative? I think it is: if I do not understand how the pyramids were built, but am surrounded by a mob of crater-faced teenagers insisting aliens built it, I am under no obligation to accept their theory. I can see no clear law of reason that dictates that my rejection of their theory bears an obligation to provide one of my own. Their theory is stupid, end of story.

The one caveat is, I probably would be under obligation if I were an Egyptologist. As pertains to the evolution debate, Johnson probably would sing a different tune if he were a scientist. But he’s not, he’s a lawyer. What then? Johnson’s arguments are valid for non-scientists, but invalid for scientists?

First off, his arguments are valid for logic. The details of evolutionary science are largely irrelevant to those outside of a scientific career, so it seems implausible to suggest that anyone is bound to believe any scientific theory, just because an academic consensus says so. I have a feeling though, that professional biologists would have a tough time embracing the force of Johnson’s arguments. Evolutionary science may well be irrelevant to the average Joe, but perhaps Johnson’s argumentative strategy is equally irrelevant to those who deal with biological theory five days of the week. Then again, if Johnson’s arguments are valid, perhaps it just means biologists need to be more critical about their day-to-day working assumptions.

Some Weaknesses

Johnson argues in his conclusion that Evolution is inseperable from naturalistic philosophy. This is an important creed for Johnson, and I spent a good while thinking about it, and not a little energy attempting to form this argument into a simple, easily demonstrable syllogism. After all, if you can demonstrate that evolution’s very structure is philosophical and not scientific, you’ve basically won the game, right? Unfortunately, I have been unable to demonstrate this to be true, and I have to stick to my original position: evolution can be wedded to either a theistic or atheistic perspective. Christianity does not disavow natural causes for events. It simply disavows that natural causes are the only realities in the universe. So if evolution is a system of natural causes, why should that be “inseperably linked with naturalism”? Johnson doesn’t say, although he may do so in his other book Reason in the Balance, currently collecting dust on my shelf waiting to be read.

The biggest glaring fault in Johnson’s argument is the necessity of holding some kind of conspiracy theory. I loathe conspiracy theories with a passion. Yet, if Johnson is right, that evolution is unadulterated scientific nonsense, I must therefore conclude that the majority of the world’s biologists, paleontologists, astronomers, etc., have all gotten together to conspire and endorse a theory that they know to be false. Or perhaps more softly: a host of academic departments have ceased to think critically about their operating assumptions. (This appears to be Johnson's view) This is a pretty tall order: you’d think that a theory as bad as Johnson makes evolution out to be would have some internal criticism. My observation is the opposite: a large number of well educated people from all sorts of religious and irreligious stripes have found in Darwinism a powerful explanation of natural phenomenon.

While I was impressed with the breadth of Johnson’s scientific knowledge, and the cogency and force of his case against evolution, I found the implications of the conclusion a bit hard to swallow. So I’m keeping his arguments in mind, but before I endorse Johnson’s take on things, I’d like to hear the other guy’s side of the story...