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?