Darwin on Trial

Phillip E. Johnson

Darwin on Trial shows the flaws in the arguments for evolution. He is not a scientist, though he is very acquainted with the scientific data that allegedly support the theory of evolution. For example, in an early chapter he shows that "natural selection" is a tautology (something that is always true, or "a way of saying the same thing twice"). That is, it predicts that "the fittest organisms will produce the most offspring." But how does it define the fittest organisms? As those that produce the most offspring.

That evolutionists assume the truth of their theory even in the face of massive evidence to the contrary is demonstrated in several ways. For example, an account is given of a conference at which a group of distinguished mathematicians argued that it was improbable that the eye could have evolved by the accumulation of small mutations. The number of necessary mutations was so large and the time available was so small that it could be confidently stated that the event was impossible. However, two of the scientists argued that the mathematicians were doing their science backwards. The fact was that the eye had evolved and therefore the math must be incorrect. "Evolution has occurred," stated Ernst Mayr. "Somehow or other by adjusting these figures we will come out all right."

I'd like to have that kind of faith!

One of the frequently stated arguments against evolution is the lack of any transitional forms in the fossil record. That is, the assumption exists that amphibians descended from fish; reptiles from amphibians; and mammals from reptiles. Yet the fossil record clearly shows (1) that species remain unchanged over long periods of time and (2) that species appear suddenly without transitional forms.

Johnson goes further and points out that even if transitional forms are found, "it will not be enough to find that organisms share a common biochemical basis, or that their molecules as well as their visible features can be classified in a pattern of groups within groups. The important claim of Darwinism is not that relationships exist, but that those relationships were produced by a naturalistic process in which parent species were gradually transformed into quite different descendant forms through long branches (or even thick bushes) of transitional intermediates, without intervention by any Creator or other non-naturalistic mechanism." These naturalistic processes have not only never been found, but none has ever been proposed.

Contemporary scientists and educators define "science" as the search for naturalistic explanations for what we see in the world around us. This allows them to discount the arguments of those who teach supernatural origins as being "non-science" and therefore they should not be taught in the science classroom. But Johnson points out that this definition cripples the believability of any scientific effort. "First, scientists may not consider all the possibilities, but must restrict themselves to those which are consistent with a strict philosophical naturalism. For example, they may not study genetic information on the assumption that it may be the product of intelligent communication. Second, scientists may not falsify an element of Darwinism, such as the creative power of natural selection, until and unless they can provide an acceptable substitute. This rule is necessary because advocates of naturalism must at all times have a complete theory at their disposal to prevent any rival philosophy from establishing a foothold."

Johnson does not propose any particular replacement for Darwinism, but rather says, "Exposing Darwinism to possible falsification would not imply support for any other theory, certainly not any pseudoscientific theory based upon a religious dogma.... Falsification is not a defeat for science, but a liberation. It removes the dead weight of prejudice, and thereby frees us to look for the truth."

I've said for a long time that Creationists are the only true scientists because they are willing to consider all possibilities that are suggested by the evidence. The naturalist, on the other hand, must ignore all evidence for design. Die-hard Creationists will find elements of this book frustrating because Johnson does not go on to propose biblical creationism as the alternative to Darwinism. But his arguments against blind adherence to Darwinism are all but irrefutable.