Book Review: Darwin On Trial

Darwin On Trial was written by Phillip E. Johnson in 1993. From what I can gather, this is the book that started a phenomenon. Within the pages of Darwin On Trail, we find the genesis of the modern Intelligent Design movement. This is a book written by a Christian, but with very little to say about Christianity and a great deal to say about science and evolution. Johnson does not pretend to be a scientist. He is lawyer that specializes in the nature and structure of arguments, and this is the field in which he attempts to remain throughout the book, dissecting the arguments and logic of biologists and paleontologists.

I think that Johnson does make some good points throughout the whole of the book, though past the midpoint the focus shifts from scientific theories towards legal matters and education systems. This book is at its best when confronting traditional evolutionary theory with challenging questions about the fossil record and assumptions made concerning classification and evolution. This book is at its worst when Johnson portrays the scientific community in a negative manner and links scientific theory with philosophical speculation.

Whenever the matter of common ancestry comes to the front, Johnson sounds like a broken record, his common response being that relationship between organisms does not imply common ancestry, and that evolutionists are biased in their interpretation of the data because they assume from the beginning that evolution is a valid theory. Johnson uses this line of reasoning to address everything from lack of transitional forms in the fossil record to the development of theories such as punctuated equilibrium and neutral theory. On one hand Johnson makes some good points. If our observations do not confirm our hypothesis, then should we not begin to question the validity of the theory which our hypothesis is based upon? Johnson says that instead biologists and paleontologists simply modify the theory of evolution to account for their observations, and therefore the theory can never be falsified, as it has the potential to always explain every observation.

However, I think that Johnson is neglecting the vast amount of evidence that we do have in support of evolution when he follows this line of argument. If every observation we made required a modification of the theory of natural selection, then there would be a problem. But this is not the case, and evolution has a great deal of predictive power as a scientific theory. Therefore, biologists and paleontologist can assume the validity of natural selection and evolution when they interpret their observations.

I have no doubt that Johnson is an excellent lawyer. Like a good prosecuting attorney, Johnson presents the reader with a collection of evidence and demands the conviction of scientists and evolution. However, the courtroom is not the place for this discussion. Instead, scientific research should determine the validity of evolution. Johnson gathers together statements from various scientists, his witnesses, and various aspects of evolutionary theory, his exhibits, and asks that the reader, his jury, reach a guilty verdict. But scientific research is carried out in a manner completely unlike the courtroom setting: instead of witnesses there are theories, instead of exhibits there are experiments. Hypotheses, experiments, observations and conclusions are formed, carried out, and evaluated in the context of the greater body of scientific literature, which is comprised of thousands of scientific papers and various books written by thousands of scientists over the last couple centuries. The validity of a theory is not determined by the conclusion of a few individuals, but the consensus of the entire community. It is in this rigorous, academic environment that evolution must make its defense.

Politics and Perspectives

A blog that I frequent often is Science and Religion: A View from an Evolutionary Creationist. The author, James Kidder, does an excellent job of providing updates on anything in the news related to evolution, intelligent design, and the ongoing debates. Recently, he has posted several short articles about Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her opinions about creationism, intelligent design, and the teaching of such subjects in schools.

I do not think that Intelligent Design is legitimate science, something that I will expound upon in the future; therefore, I do not think that we should be teaching Intelligent Design in our schools. Unfortunately, it seems that matters of both science and religion often are used and abused by politicians to develop a good public image and gain more support. One day a politician may support the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools; the next day the same person may caution against such action. Perhaps they are being manipulative... or perhaps, like many people, they are not sure what they believe about evolution?

I will probably never vote for a "Christian" candidate because I think that my political ideology should direct my support of candidates and policies. My religious perspective certainly directs my political ideology to a degree, but my religious preference should not direct my support of candidates and policies. I will certainly not support a candidate simply because he shares my religious preference.

I think this same reasoning can be applied to the natural sciences. I do not want a "Christian" science because I think that science should be directed by methodological naturalism. I suppose you could argue for a different scientific ideology, but science has always been directed by methodological naturalism... that is the whole point of science, to find naturalistic explanations for observable phenomenon. To explain observable phenomenon with a non-naturalistic explanation such as the presence of an intelligent designer is simply non-scientific... according to my scientific ideology. Intelligent Design is developed from a scientific ideology that is directed by a religious perspective, usually Christianity. Seriously, if the creation stories of Genesis were not in the Bible, would the theory of Intelligent Design even exist?

Who is responsible?

At the end of Some “Evil” Thoughts, Joe posted a YouTube parody of the “Mythbusters” television show. In this video, two guys try to disprove God’s existence by testing the effectiveness of prayer. The video is a funny parody, but what caught my attention were these lines:


Jamie: Well the proof that most people cite is that they pray to God, and he answers their prayers.

Adam: Right, like uh when you pray for someone who’s really sick to get better.

Jamie: But that sick person may be getting better due to modern medicine, the skill of a surgeon, or just through their body’s natural healing.

Adam: Exactly, God could be claiming credit for stuff that he has nothing to do with.


I can respect the desire to perform a scientific experiment with controlled variables, but I think this video brings to light a wrong perspective our society (Christian and non-Christians alike) has about God.

Our tendency is to separate events into two categories:

1) caused by God
2) not caused by God

Only the most direct interventions into our world, such as the healing of a terminally ill person or the parting of the Red Sea, make it into the first category. Everything else falls into the second category, which itself has three subcategories: human causes, natural causes, and coincidences.

But if we look to the scriptures, we find a different perspective about God’s interaction with his creation. The Bible reveals to us that God is ultimately responsible for everything, from the rise and fall of civilizations to the provision of food for the birds.

Perhaps we are due for a change in our thinking. While events may appear to be due to human or natural causes, or even pure chance, ultimately God has his hand in all events. Therefore, we should praise him for all good things, and not look down upon the benefits of modern medicine and science, through which God brings healing. In the same manner, we must recognize that even our best treatments and scientific advances are only possible because God makes them possible. He is worthy of all our praise.

Book Review: The Language of God

In his book “The Language Of God,” Francis Collins addresses the question: “In this modern era... is there still the possibility of a richly satisfying harmony between the scientific and spiritual worldviews?” If you are unfamiliar with Francis Collins, then allow me to enlighten you. Francis Collins was the director of the Human Genome Project, a thirteen year long project that involved thousands of scientists and lab technicians. This great endeavor culminated in the mapping of the entire genetic sequence of humans. Francis Collins mentions his involvement with the Human Genome Project throughout the book, but the project is not the focus of his writing. Instead, Collins hopes to enlighten his readers about the theory of evolution, its place in our understanding of life, and how it relates to our faith in God.

“The Language Of God” is divided into three main sections. The first section takes on an autobiographical feel as Collins describes his upbringing and early perspectives on religion. The second section focuses on the origins of the universe and life. Also included is a scientific explanation about DNA and genetics that is very accessible to the general reader. In the third section, Collins proceeds to outline the different perspectives about evolution and creation. The book ends with encouragements for Christians and atheists to recognize both the capabilities and limitations of science, as well as the place of faith in our lives.

I picked up this book expecting a detailed explanation of how genetic evidence indicates that the theory of evolution is a valid explanation of the diversity of life that exists today. Collins certainly delivers in that respect, and in ways that are very accessible to someone without a doctorate in genetics. However, there is more than scientific jargon bound between these pages. Reflections on his own faith journey are a valuable insight into how the reader can begin to incorporate these concepts about genetics, evolution, and the origins of the universe into his own understanding of scientific theory and spiritual belief. Collins reveals the shortcomings of both atheism and Intelligent Design and eloquently provides the reader with a third option that compromises neither the theory of evolution nor a belief in God.

I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the evolution/creation debate, regardless of your current position or religious attitude. Collins speaks to both the ardent atheist and the devout believer. There are words on these pages for both the mind and the heart, a pair too often in conflict, which Collins challenges the reader to reconcile in harmony.

Inerrancy: Does God tell the truth?

In my last post, I mentioned that I completely trust the scriptures in matters of doctrine (a collection of beliefs) and ethics. But what about questions of history, chronology, and science? This is the matter of inerrancy: the idea that the scriptures are completely free of any error in regards to all matters of history, chronology, and science.

Most evangelical Christians would contend that the scriptures are inerrant. Usually, this belief is founded upon the concept that God cannot deceive, and that any error in the “Word of God” would be an intentional deception by God. There are certainly passages in the Bible that assert its veracity, but I think these passages are communicating about the infallibility of the scriptures, how the scriptures reveal the definitive truth to humanity about Jesus Christ and our relationship to him, and not the historical, chronological, or scientific data of the scriptures.

I think this because it only makes sense in context of the intended message of the scriptures. For several posts, Joe and I have been discussing the importance of viewing the scriptures as our greatest tool for understanding the person of Jesus Christ and what he means for our lives. If this is the central point around which all the scriptures orbit, then I am inclined to think that anytime a passage in the Bible mentions the truthfulness of the “Word of God,” the message is that the Bible is our only truthful source for understanding Jesus Christ (not history, chronology, or science).

At times the Bible is a history book, such as in the books of Kings and Chronicles. Certainly the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are biographies and thus have a historical component. I do not think that these books are wrought with errors. On the contrary, I think they communicate accurately about very particular events in history, but not because of a special act by God.

I think that all the historical, chronological, and scientific information in the scriptures is information that the human authors already possessed through their own experience and research. Unfortunately, humans are not perfect in these matters, so there may be historical, chronological, and scientific errors in the scriptures.

I do not think this is a deception by God because I believe that God’s primary role in the creation of the scriptures was the inspiration (the granting of insight into divine truth and wisdom for applying divine truth) of the human authors. I do not believe God granted the authors access to special information regarding history, chronology, or science. Instead, God allowed the authors to use what they had learned through normal experience to communicate his messages to people.

So the historical and chronological information in the Bible is no more or less accurate than most historical and chronological information that we possess. But what about scientific information? Over the past 2,000 years our understanding of the natural world has changed drastically. It can be difficult to find reconciliation between the scriptures and current scientific theories… but it is not impossible.

Infallibility: Can we trust the Bible?

In my last post, I offered thoughts about what Christians mean when they refer to the Bible as the “Word of God.” While discussing the role of human authorship in the scriptures, we must confront this question: Can we trust a book written by sinful people.

Because God was actively involved in the creation of the scriptures, I believe that we can completely trust the scriptures when they speak on certain matters. These matters would be doctrine and ethics. Doctrine is a collection of beliefs (usually in the form of statements) about God and humanity. We develop doctrinal statements through the process of theology, which is the study of God. Ethics are beliefs about what is right and wrong, and by extension Biblical ethics are beliefs about what is right and wrong according to the Bible.

Christian theology must rely primarily on the scriptures to develop our doctrine; they are the most reliable resource available for understanding God. No mere man could fathom the reality of God. So through the centuries, God gave insight and wisdom to the authors of scripture so they could write truthfully about the character, attributes, and values of God. When Jesus Christ walked the earth, those qualities became manifest in the man who was “the image of the invisible God.”

The Bible should be important to Christians because it is our most valuable resource for understanding the person of Jesus Christ and our relationship with him. In his series “What is at the center of Christianity,” Joe writes that Jesus Christ is the center of our religion, and the Bible points us towards him. The greater purpose of every book of the Bible is to draw the reader closer to Jesus Christ.

My simple thought on Biblical ethics goes like this: a Christian’s beliefs about right and wrong should be based on God’s beliefs about right and wrong, which we learn through studying the character, attributes, and values of God found in the scriptures, and direct statements about right and wrong found in the scriptures reveal aspects of God’s character and values. The Bible is not a set of rules or instructions, but it does help us understand the character and values of the God we are called to emulate. It is written in Leviticus, “Be holy, because I, the Lord your God, am holy."

So as we come to the Bible with a desire to understand and know Jesus Christ better, I believe that the scriptures will not fail to guild us into a greater understanding and deeper relationship with Jesus Christ. This is the explicit purpose of the scriptures, and it is the matter on which they are infallible. But what about questions of history, chronology, and science? In my next post, I will discuss the issue of inerrancy.

Inspiration: Who wrote the Bible?

In Part 2 of “What’s at the center of Christianity,” Joe mentioned that the Bible is often referred to as the “Word of God.” What does this mean?

Many Christians believe that God inspired the Bible. This type of inspiration is different from that of an artist who responds emotionally to some external factor (nature, people, etc.) by creating a work of art. The authors of the Bible were not merely responding to an experience with God, but God himself was active in the creation of the text.

But how was God involved? Are the words of the Bible a heavenly dictation or human musings? Neither option is very appealing. Either God directly manipulated the authors, or the text was written by humans… who are prone to mistakes and misunderstandings.

We do have Biblical text that was dictation from God. We call it prophecy, and you need only turn to Isaiah to find a very obvious phrase like, “The Lord has spoken this word.” The mark of a good prophet was speaking only the very words of God… often to people that did not want to hear the truth. In the Old Testament we have a collection of prophetic oracles, words directly from God, which were written down. But what about the Psalms, the narratives, and all those letters?

Perhaps God and the authors worked in some type of partnership. Each author brought his own personality, style, and cultural background into the writing. God brought insight and wisdom so that the authors could understand and explain things that only the mind of God could comprehend. Most books in the Bible were written to address particular situations, and through insight and wisdom from God, each author was able to respond to those situations with divine truth and understanding. The words themselves belong to the author, but the ideas they express belong to God.

If the authorship of the Bible was a partnership between God and men, then can we trust the written text? To address this question it may be helpful to discuss two terms: infallibility and inerrancy. I will discuss these concepts in my next post.

About the Contributor: Adam

When I was younger, I learned some about God, Jesus, and the Bible through my church. During high school, I thought about God, religion, and Christianity, but my ideas and opinions were not informed; they were only my personal musings. It was not until college that I began to honestly explore Christianity and the Bible.

I attended Muskingum College four years, and I graduated with an undergraduate degree in Biology. At heart I am a scientist, and I enjoyed every biology class I took, and I value everything that I learned in those classes. My professors were good people that I still admire.

During college, I became involved with a Christian group on campus called Campus Crusade for Christ. I learned about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit on conferences and retreats with Campus Crusade. But I also learned about Christianity through exploring the Bible, taking classes in Biblical studies, and having long conversations with good friends. Both of these sources were vital in developing my beliefs about Christianity and the Bible.

I have learned that Christianity is more than commands or rituals. Jesus of Nazareth was a real person who had lived on earth, and he was more than human. He was deity incarnate, literally God in human form. Jesus was the answer to the problem that had plagued humanity for millennia: the separation between a righteous God and a disobedient people, a separation that warranted our death. Jesus paid the penalty for our disobedience when he died on a Roman cross, defeated death when he was resurrected three days later, and offers anyone who trusts him eternal life.

I spent my first year after graduation working with Campus Crusade in central Ohio. When my internship ended, I decided to join the full-time staff of Campus Crusade. Through my experience in college ministry, I have talked with many people, listening to their thoughts and perspectives on Christianity and the Bible. Some ideas seem more reasonable than others. Some ideas sound absurd. But these discussions have always helped me to better understand and articulate what I think and believe.

There are still many questions that need addressed. What about evolution? Is the Bible reliable? Is Christianity the only legitimate religion? Where does postmodernism fit into all of this? I hold strong opinions on some issues, but I want to learn more, hear what other people think, and dialogue about these important topics. Discussing these topics openly and honestly has only served to deepen my faith and appreciation of my God. I hope that this blog can serve you in the same manner.