SJ: Calling Johnson a "lawyer" is like calling Charles Darwin a
theologian (Darwin's only academic qualification was in theology).
Johnson is a senior Professor of Law at Berkeley University and his
specialty is analysing the logic of arguments:
SJ: "Before undertaking this task I should say something about my
qualifications and purpose. I am not a scientist but an academic
lawyer by profession, with a specialty in analyzing the logic of
arguments and identifying the assumptions that lie behind those
arguments" (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, pp13-14).
SJ: I would have thought that "a specialty in analyzing the logic of
arguments and identifying the assumptions that lie behind those
arguments" is a *very* relevant qualification in assessing the
evidence and arguments for Darwinism.
That depends on the person's ability to understand the assumptions behind
the
arguments. Darwin did not apply theology to explain the vaste evidence of
evolution but used a scientific approach.
You wrote:
>Practicing scientists are of necessity highly specialized, and a
>scientist outside his field of expertise is just another layman"
>(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, pp13-14)
Does this not mean that Johnson in his own logic is just another
layman ?
====================================================
==* DARWIN_ON_TRIAL PE_JOHNSON CRITIQUE ELSBERRY
Copyright 1992 by Wesley R. Elsberry
Permission is granted for free electronic distribution. All other
use requires the written consent of the author. The author can
be contacted at P.O. Box 1187, Richland, WA 99352,
elsberry@beta.tricity.wsu.edu.
921016
Phillip E. Johnson's "Darwin On Trial"
This 1991 book has made quite a splash in the summer of 1992. With
the arguably vituperative review given by Stephen Jay Gould in the
July 1992 issue of Scientific American, a controversy now rages not
only over the topic of evolution versus pseudoscientific nonsense, but
also over how to engage those who espouse that pseudoscientific
nonsense.
But before we proceed to the dissection of the corpus of errors which
Johnson has presented to us, let us look at the cover text for "Darwin
On Trial".
[Begin quote]
Darwin On Trial
Phillip E. Johnson
Darwin's theory of evolution is accepted by most educated Americans as
simple fact. This easy acceptance, however, hides from us the many
ways in which evolution -as an idea- shapes our thinking about a great
many things.
[Huh? There has been nothing "easy" about getting people to accept
evolutionary mechanism theories (EMTs), unless they have seen the
evidence of biological research. Additionally, the nice thing about
EMTs is that they do allow us to recognize relationships which might
have otherwise escaped our notice. EMTs are perception heightening,
not the opposite as Johnson asserts. -- WRE]
What if this idea is wrong?
[Well, then, we can be certain that science will abandon it as
science has done with other theories which have not withstood the
tests and findings of later research. So far, though, most EMTs have
done admirably well. -- WRE]
That is, what if it turned out that the evidence for Darwin's theory
is in tatters and science is hanging on to it only because no other
theory is in prospect?
[While this might be the premise for an SF novel, Johnson does nothing
to demonstrate that this actually holds. -- WRE]
What if "evolution" is just a word that covers up scientific ignorance
of how the wonders of the living world could have been created?
[Then I guess that it holds an analogous position to the word
"gravity" covering up the scientific ignorance of how clumps of matter
attract one another. -- WRE]
Berkely law professor Phillip Johnson looks at the evidence for
Darwinistic evolution the way a lawyer would -- with a cold
dispassionate eye for logic and proof.
[ROFL -- lawyers take an adversarial position and run with it.
Johsnon does look at the topic in the manner of a trial lawyer, but
the preceding description bears no relation to his approach in "Darwin
On Trial". One wonders if another book was written that actually has
the "cold and dispassionate" analysis. While "proof" may be an
operative concept in the legal field, it is not part of the scientific
method. -- WRE]
His discovery is that scientists have put the cart before the horse.
[Interesting use of the word "discovery" there -- I wonder if Norman
MacBeth, author of the 1971 book "Darwin Retried", would agree with
the usage. Various and sundry other authors have announced this
selfsame "discovery", and none of them has yet documented that their
discovery actually exists. -- WRE]
They prematurely accepted Darwin's theory as fact and have been
scrambling to find evidence for it -- mostly unsuccessfully.
[This is demonstrative of either massive ignorance or massive chutzpah
on Johnson's part. Even the most churlish of SciCre mavens have
conceded the existence and operation of what they term
"microevolution" by means of natural selection. Since "natural
selection" is "Darwin's theory", it would seem that acceptance of the
evidence is nearly universal, even among those most critical of the
theory. -- WRE]
As the evidentiary difficulties have piled up, they have clung to the
theory out of fear of encouraging religious fundamentalism, and in the
process have turned belief in Darwinism into their own religion.
[As I said earlier, this may make great SF, but it bears no relation
to the reality that you or I actually live in. There are no
"evidentiary difficulties" of the extent that Johnson implies, and
natural selection has withstood over a hundred years of implacable
testing by determined skeptics. To those who have seen and understood
the evidence, no "belief" in natural selection or other EMTs is
necessary, merely an acknowledgement of the scientific validity of the
findings. -- WRE]
Darwinism, Johnson argues, has become another kind of fundamentalism
-- merely dressed up in a laboratory smock and with a fierce and
condescending refusal to listen to critics.
[Nonsense. Biologists listen to each other with great regularity.
However, I do not not consider someone to be a critic unless they
demonstrate some knowledge of the domain which they critique.
SciCre-ists and their fellow travelers in general fall well short of
being "critics" of evolutionary mechanism theories. Is the contumely
displayed for those who chose to represent themselves in court an
example of lawyers being condescending? Somehow, I think it might be
difficult to get a lawyer to agree with that characterization. --
WRE]
"Darwin On Trial" is a cogent and stunning tour de force that
not only rattles the cages of conventional wisdom, but could provide
the basis for a fundamental change in the way educated Americans
regard themselves, their origins, and their fate.
[I will withhold comment on this sentence for the moment. -- WRE]
Professor Phillip Johnson is a graduate of Harvard and the University
of Chicago. He was a law clerk for Chief Justice Earl Warren of the
United States Supreme Court, and has taught law for over twenty years
at the University of California at Berkeley. He took up the study of
Darwinism because he saw that the books defending the theory were
dogmatic and unconvincing.
[I find this explanation unconvincing. My own conjecture is that
Johnson finds "evolution" personally distasteful, and has gone on from
there. -- WRE]
He wrote this book to give Americans the information they need to
make up their own minds.
[I find that exceedingly doubtful. Johnson's book is ragingly
partisan. Even Francis Hitching's "The Neck of the Giraffe: Where
Darwin Went Wrong" is more even-handed than Johnson's book. -- WRE]
[Now for some of the blurbs.]
"'Darwin On Trial' is unquestionably the best critique of Darwinism I
have ever read. Professor Johnson combines a broad knowledge of
biology with the incisive logic of a leading legal scholar to deliver
a brilliant and devastating attack on the whole edifice of Darwinian
belief. There is no doubt that this book will prove a severe
embarrassment to the Darwinian establishment."
[It is certainly an embarrassment to those of us who must grudgingly
admit being citizens of the same nation as Johnson, an embarrassment
not shared by the author of the blurb. -- WRE]
Dr. Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist and author of "Evolution: A
Theory in Crisis".
[Hey, just because someone is composed of molecules and happens to be
involved in the life sciences does not make that person a molecular
biologist. Several people have attempted literature searches for Dr.
Michael Denton, and have come up with no molecular biology related
journal articles. The lack of any publication record in the topic
certainly diminishes the credibility of Denton's claims of molecular
biology expertise. Dr. Denton appears to be, however, a medical
doctor with a publication record in the medical journals of the South
Pacific. -- WRE]
"'Darwin On Trial' shows just how Darwinian evolution has become an
idol of the contemporary tribe, and how deeply philosophical and
religious ideas enter into its status as part of the intellectual
orthodoxy of our day."
Alvin Plantinga, Professor of Philosophy Notre Dame University
[Ever notice how fundamentalists are so contemptuous of philosophers,
unless they happen to agree with the fundamentalist? -- WRE]
"Darwin's theory of evolution is one of the great intellectual
superstitions of modern times. It does the soul good to see a
Berkeley professor attack it."
Tom Bethell, The Hoover Institution
[Pretty strong words coming from a fellow who apparently cannot
distinguish between what natural selection is and a concise
misstatement of natural selection. Bethell's "Harper's" article on
this topic is a screamer. -- WRE]
[Going back a bit, let's take another look at a sentence: ]
"Darwin On Trial" is a cogent and stunning tour de force that
not only rattles the cages of conventional wisdom, but could provide
the basis for a fundamental change in the way educated Americans
regard themselves, their origins, and their fate.
[As for cogency, there are a number of serious problems in Johnson's
characterizations of "evolution", "evolutionary theory", and
"Darwinism". Mainly, these stem from Johnson's use of his own
connotation of each, while mistakenly assuming that his connotation is
operative for each occurrence in the literature. "Stunning" is
usually applied to phenomena with the attribute of novelty, something
to which Johnson's recycled polemics cannot lay claim. Educated
Americans will find Johnson's book the basis for a fundamental belly
laugh at a specific instance of an outsider critiquing a field, and
delimiting the extent of his ignorance rather than unmasking flaws in
that field. It would seem that SciCre literature and its fellow
travelers - Johnson's "Darwin On Trial" among them - suffer from a
critical dependence upon previously forwarded arguments. Few new
forms of argumentation have been forthcoming on the SciCre side of
things since the days of George MacReady Price. Johnson,
unfortunately, covers no new ground. There already exist compendiums
of rebuttals to the archetypal SciCre arguments, so much of the
possible criticism of "Darwin On Trial" will be, in a sense,
redundant.-- WRE]
==!
==* PE_JOHNSON DARWIN_ON_TRIAL CRITIQUE ELSBERRY
921017
A Critique of Specific Failings of Phillip E. Johnson's "Darwin On Trial"
Copyright 1992 by Wesley R. Elsberry
Permission is granted for free electronic distribution of this work. All
other usage requires the written consent of the author. The author can
be contacted at P.O. Box 1187, Richland, WA 99352,
elsberry@beta.tricity.wsu.edu.
A 'q' in parentheses indicates that the text paragraph following is a
quote (also contained in {}). Otherwise, the paragraph following is
a paraphrase or simply refers to the text on the indicated page.
On page 3, Johnson confuses "evolution" with "evolutionary [mechanism]
theories" (EMTs hereafter).
p. 3(q): {The conflict requires careful consideration, because the
terms are confusing.}
Johnson does little to cure the confusion, though. He proceeds to define
"creation-science" and "creationism", but avoids delving explicitly into
what he means by his use of "evolution". He does say this, though:
p. 4(q): {"Evolution" contradicts "creation" only when it is explicitly
or tacitly defined as _fully naturalistic evolution_ -- meaning
evolution that is not directed by any purposeful intelligence.}
At this point, Johnson has departed into the weeds. This is a shame, since
it means that the rest of his book is devoted to the pursuit of chimeras --
Johnson's misunderstandings of what science is and what part evolution has
within science. In a footnote on page 4, Johnson expands upon his "c"
definitions.
p. 4 (q)(footnote): {Clearing up confusion requires a careful and
consistent use of terms. In this book, "creation-science" refers to
young-earth, six-day special creation. "Creationism" means belief in
creation in a more general sense. Persons who believe that the earth
is billions of years old, and that simple forms of life evolved
gradually to become more complex forms including humans, are
"creationists" if they believe that a supernatural Creator not only
initiated this process but in some meaningful sense _controls_ it in
furtherance of a purpose. As we shall see, "evolution" (in
contemporary scientific usage) excludes not just creation-science but
creationism in the broad sense. By "Darwinism" I mean fully
naturalistic evolution, involving chance mechanisms guided by natural
selection.}
Still no definition of "evolution" given, although he has delimited the
"c" definitions reasonably well. Given that Johnson then eschews the
discussion of creation-science or creationism in the rest of the book, this
seems like a pointless exercise to take up in the first two pages of his
work. Further, leaving "evolution" without clear definition is fatal to
his
purpose, for as Johnson states:
p. 3(q): {The conflict requires careful explanation, because the terms are
confusing.}
Skipping ahead a bit, we find on page 15 a remarkable sentence.
p. 15(q): {My subject is not history but the logic of current
controversy, and so my interest must be in Darwinism and not Darwin.}
We see here the emergence of a pattern. Johnson claims that he wishes to
clear up controversy, and establishes that the terms used in the debate
could be confusing. So Johnson defines two terms which he has no
intention of using to any great extent in the rest of his volume while not
defining clearly the ones which he will use over and over. Then, we
discover
that rather than explore the subject of the title of Johnson's book, we
will
be treated instead to an exploration of Darwinism. This could lead one to
believe that Johnson's purpose in writing this book may not be to clear up
controversy, but rather to layer the controversy with another mass of
obfuscation.
p. 5(q): {The trial thus ended in a conviction and a nominal fine of $100.
On
appeal, the Tennessee supreme court threw out the fine on a technicality
but held the statute constitutional.}
If one examines p. 273 of Gould's "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes", it
seems apparent that no review of the law occurred. Also, if a fine of
$100 in 1926 currency is "nominal", I wonder if Johson would be
willing to pay me the equivalent sum in today's currency for each
factual error of his that I expose. Somehow, I think that he would
not care to take me up on that even for one error's worth of
correction. If so, I'll take mine in gold certificates, please.
pp. 5&6: Johnson recounts a partial history of Henry Fairfield Osborn
and Nebraska Man. As Gould points out in his SciAm review, this
treatment ignores the fact that Osborn discovered and published the
observation that Nebraska Man was actually an extinct peccary.
p. 7(q): {If we say that naturalistic evolution is _science_, and
supernatural
creation is _religion_, the effect is not very different from saying that
the former is true and the latter is fantasy. When the doctrines of
science
are taught as fact, then whatever those doctrines exclude cannot be true.
By the use of labels, objections to naturalistic evolution can be
dismissed
without a fair hearing.}
Johnson simply displays how far out of it he is with this conflation.
Fields of study with differing assumptions are not directly
comparable. Attempting to extablish the relative worth of findings in
science, which does not examine the supernatural by definition, with
those of theology, which does consider the supernatural, is an
exercise in futility, or in Johnson's case, rhetorical devices and
fallacies.
The answer to Johnson's predicament is not to go tilting at well
supported theories, but rather to take Thoraeu's advice. Educate the
public, making clear that the difference between "science" and
"religion" is not equivalent to the difference between "fact" and
"fantasy". Good instruction in science will make clear that most of
what is currently accepted theory in science will someday in the
future be considered erroneous to some degree or another. "Doctrines
of science" should not, as Johnson points out, be taught as fact,
where those "doctrines" are hypotheses and theories. On the other
hand, an appreciation of empirical inquiry should be part of any
science education. Theories and hypotheses are supported or abandoned
in the light of evidence, not conjecture or prejudice.
It is less easy for me to give guidelines on the educational approach
to theology, since I have no formal training in the subject.
Emphasis should be given to pointing out the distinction between
the assumptions that theology makes and those of science. Science
is limited both in its domain and range because of its incorporation
of the naturalistic assumptions in operation.
Consider for a moment two phenomena. One has a natural cause, the
other a supernatural cause. In both cases, science might be used to
attempt to provide an explanation for each. In the case of the first
phenomenon, the scientific method may produce a theory giving a
mechanism. If the mechanism is testable given current technology,
evidentiary support or contradiction may be found, and the theory will
be supported, modified, or abandoned. On the other hand, the second
phenomenon may well be explicable via natural mechanisms, but still be
the result of supernatural action. In the case of the second
phenomenon, science is incapable of distinguishing what is analogous
to a statistical Type II error. The difference between how science
operates and how Johnson and many SciCre-ists believe that science
should operate is that science and its practitioners do not even
attempt to distinguish whether the natural mechanisms proposed to
explain the second phenomenon are actually causal, or simply
apparently causal, whereas Johnson apparently believes that science
should concern itself with considerations
p. 8(q): {For example, the Academy's rule against negative argument
automatically eliminates the possibility that science has not
discovered how complex organisms could have developed.}
This is nonsense. Science doesn't claim to know all the answers, else,
there
would be no need for research.
p. 9(q): {When he contemplates the perfidy of those who refuse to believe,
Dawkins can scarcely restrain his fury. "It is absolutely safe to say
that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution,
that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather
not consider that)." Dawkins went on to explain, by the way, that
what he dislikes particularly about creationists is that they are
intolerant.}
So what is tolerance? Tolerance is described generally as the ability
not to interfere with those with whom you disagree. Nowhere has
Johnson demonstrated that Dawkins practices intolerance. In fact,
since Dawkins' disagreement with fundamentalists appears so extreme,
this absence of evidence of intolerance may point to a very tolerant
person indeed. Johnson's grasp of rhetorical devices and fallacies is
solid, but his willingness to engage in "cold and dispassionate logic"
certainly is not anywhere in evidence here.
p. 14(q): {I assume that the creation-scientists are biased by their
precommitment to Biblical fundamentalism, and I will have very little
to say about their position. The question I want to investigate is
whether Darwinism is based upon a fair assessment of the scientific
evidence, or whether it is another kind of fundamentalism.}
Gee, I can hardly wait to see how this turns out, given that Johnson
decries "Darwinism" as a form of fundamentalism on the jacket of the
book. Here we see the creationist fondness for systems of
oppositional dualism.
p.15(q): {The story of Charles Darwin has been told many times, and no
wonder. The relationship with the lawyer-geologist Charles Lyell, the
long voyage in the Beagle with the temperamental Captain Fitzroy, the
observations and adventures in South America and the Galapagos
Islands, the long years of preparation and delay, the eventual rushed
publication of "The Origin of Species" when Alfred Russell Wallace
appeared about to publish a similar theory, the controversies and the
smashing triumph -- all these make a great saga worth another
retelling.}
However, the great saga is not worth a revionist retelling, as it is
plain that Johnson would do. Darwin did not publish "TOoS" to beat
out Wallace's publication. The rush was over when to present the
basic thesis to their peers. This was done in a joint presentation to
the Linnean Society in 1858 of both Darwin and Wallace's papers on
the topic. "TOoS" was published in 1859, and Darwin did rush his
production of it, but not for the reason which Johnson has given.
When Johnson cannot even give such basic historical facts accurately,
one must wonder what else is being given short shrift or deliberate
spin.
p. 16-17 (q)(footnote): {"Mutation" as used here is a simple label for
the set of mechanisms which provide the genetic variation upon which
natural selection can go to work. The set includes point mutations,
chromosomal doubling, gene duplication, and recombinations. The
essential point is that the variations are supposed to be random.
Creative evolution would be much easier to envisage if some guiding
force caused the right mutations to arrive on schedule. Orthodox
genetic theory insists that no such guiding principle for mutation
exists, so creatures have to make do with whatever blind nature
happens to provide.}
Where to start? Natural selection does not operate upon all
mutations, only those which result in an expressed phenotypic trait
that has some selection pressure upon it. Recombination is not
considered "mutation" by any geneticist that I know of. It appears
obvious that Johnson has not considered the growing literature on
directed mutagenesis.
p. 18(q): {Natural selection is a conservative force that prevents the
appearance of the extremes of variation that human breeders like to
encourage.}
Assertion without evidence. This is a faulty argument with a long,
long history.
p. 19(q): {With respect to animals, Darwinists attribute the inability to
produce new species to a lack of sufficient time.}
I wonder about this, since the datum expressed here is not true.
Animal speciation has been observed in the wild and also has been
produced in the laboratory. Even at least one new species of
Drosophila has been noted.
p. 19(q): {In some cases, convincing circumstantial evidence exists of
evolution that has produced new species in nature. Familiar examples
include the hundreds of fruitfly species in Hawaii and the famous
variations among "Darwin's Finches" on the Galapagos Islands.}
Incredible. Here Johnson admits that evolution produces new species,
yet elsewhere he tells us that evolution is not a fact. Rather than
labeling this as a contradiction, let us classify it as an
inconsistency and move on.
p. 20: Johnson raids Norman MacBeth for some substance as well as his
book title in repeating "natural selection is a tautology".
While claiming that "natural selection is a tautology" seems quite
popular among creationists, demonstrating that it is indeed so is not.
Despite the quotes from biologists that seem to make their case for
them, creationists employ a curious kind of filter to biological
writings: what agrees with us is true, and all else is false. It is
intriguing that many of the folks that they quote in the context
lovingly and with full approbation, they may elsewhere denigrate as
being entirely mistaken. On pages 23 and 24 of Johnson's book,
Johsnon provides us with quotes of at least two statements of natural
selection which are not tautologous. Apparently, this inconsistency
of treatment slides right by Johnson.
p. 24(q): {In fact the stock is highly successful at resisting
improvement, often for millions of years, so there must be something
wrong with the logic. This time it is the confusion generated by that
word "advantage".}
The confusion is Johnson's, not the author of the quote just previous,
as becomes clear from Johnson's further commentary. He notes that
what "Darwinists" mean by "advantage" is not what Johnson thinks it
should mean. By extracting this piece of biological jargon from
context, Johnson aims to make the biologists look deliberately
obfuscatory, but merely succeeds in making himself look petty and
uninformed. Johnson also ignores the fact that "improvement" may not
be accompanied by any morphological change that would be reflected in
the fossil record. The species "unchanged for millions of years" are
judged so only on the basis of morphology, and that generally only of
hard parts. The statement cannot held to be dogmatically true when
much of the evidence is missing, as Johnson is elsewhere fond of
pointing out, but not, apparently, when it might cause him to have to
abandon a point of criticism.
p. 28(q): {In this situation some may decide that Darwinism simply _must_
be true, and for such persons the purpose of any further investigation
will be merely to explain how natural selection works and to solve the
mysteries created by apparent anomalies.}
The problem here is that Johnson assumes that science determines
truth. In fact, Johnson makes this error throughout his book.
Science does not do this. Science, instead, derives models of how
physical processes work. These models are subject to change or
abandonment due to further experiment or observation. In the absence
of contradictory evidence, the model will be retained. Johnson holds,
incorrectly, that theories of evolution must be demonstrated to be
"true" before we should "accept" them.
p. 30(q): {Darwin wrote that "If it could be proved that any part of the
structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of
another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not
have been produced through natural selection." But this was the same
Darwin who insisted that he had never claimed that natural selection
was the exclusive mechanism of evolution.}
Well, well. Here we see that Johnson is hoist upon his own petard.
By not defining "evolution" to avoid confusion, he has confused
himself in attempting to read the literature. Darwin's theory is
natural selection, not "evolution". Evolution had been theorized
prior to Darwin, as most readers with even a slight familiarity with
the literature are able to distinguish. Johnson's obvious pleasure in
picking out what he mistakenly feels to be a contradiction on Darwin's
part should make this all the more embarrassing for Johnson.
[The end. For now.]