I found this book a joy to read. Johnson leads the reader carefully and clearly through his well-reasoned arguments. I now have a heightened awareness of the very real danger of naturalism to science and many areas of Western culture. Rather than succumb to the naturalist mind-set as so many theists have regrettably done, Johnson demonstrates how to stand firm and fight back! If science is defined to exclude God (as it is) then science is limiting itself and may no longer be searching for truth (as it does not).

This book is by no means casual bedside reading, but Phillip Johnson is brilliant in bringing to light the basis of naturalistic philosophy and the logical assumptions made by those who practice it. Johnson gives illustrations of how this brand of thought has played itself out in science, law and education.

With a master's background in the hard sciences, I've found a steady mentality through school that evolution is fact and God has no place in science. Phillip Johnson helped me to understand how the logic of evolutionists works and how hollow and circular their reasoning often is. Understanding naturalists' logical assumptions has dispelled my fear of making a sound arguement in favor of intelligent design and seeing through those arguements made by those advancing a naturalistic worldview.

Philip E. Johnson details America's full-fledged embrace of Naturalism within recent contemporary history. The book is an accurate doccumentation of our nations' radical ideological shift towards a non-theistic world view and of course the price of this stupidity, what it looks like, who sells it.

When I started training in Family practice I searched for a large reference book to study from. I choose this text because it was written so well. The Language is direct, the explanations are clear and the advice is well founded. Now that I am in training the book is not as helpful as I hoped. Most of the time I find the treatment on any given topic too shallow for what I have to learn. I belive this is the result of a compromise between size and completness. I now wish I had saved my money and bought three textbooks - Harrison, Williams and Nelson as opposed to trying to find one book to cover all of internal medicine, obstetrics, and pediatrics.

This book is designed in a practical and understandable approach to family practice. It is an excellent text and a comprehensive reference especially useful for a nurse practitioner/graduate student in family practice. Not only does it provide treatment and management of common medical conditions but also includes psychosocial aspects of caring for clients and their families.

Phillip Johnson's best book yet -- the one I'd been waiting for. In this book he deals more with the philosophical issues and Christianity's response to those issues.

What is science? A search for TRUTH, at all costs? Or is it instrinsically bound to naturalism, a belief system? Why do evolutionists need to defend their beliefs by resorting to obfuscation and cheap propaganda?

Answers to these questions, and more, await you. This is a must-read book for anyone concerned about a philosophical movement which has had enormous negative consequences in recent history and promises worse to come; a movement dominating our culture today with little real criticism. Johnson offers the criticism, and begs for more. He also brings up what is becoming the key scientific issue (real science!): can the mechanism Darwinism describes actually create information from raw, inanimate materials (e.g., create cells with DNA and the ability to reproduce, which are necessary for natural selection even to start)?

When I was an undergrad, folks had bumper stickers that said things like "Challenge authority." It's high time we challenged the cultural "authority" of evolutionism and its negative view of the value of human life.

This book is an extension of the lead article in Touchstone magazine's double issue last summer on evolutionism (July/Aug 1999). Most of the other authors in that issue have books (Dembski, Behe, etc.) well worth reading.

Phillip Johnson's The Wedge of Truth may be his most insightful book yet. His trenchant critique of philosophical naturalism, especially when it is disguised as empirical science, has helped start an intellectual movement. In this book, he purifies that critique, reducing it to a simple, irresistible question: What if science, defined as the search for truth based on evidence about the natural world, conflicts with science as defined (materialistically) as the search for *naturalistic* explanations about the natural world? The "Wedge" metaphor, in the domain of science, is precisely the attempt to split apart these two definitions of science. Once the question is seriously considered, the genie is out of the bottle. No one not already committed to naturalism (whether philosophical or methodological) has any trouble knowing how to answer the question. The only ways to avoid its implications are to play definition games and assert raw power over those who ask it. We should expect much of both these tactics from Johnson's critics.

Of course, this book asks a number of other probing questions, all of which Johnson argues should be fair game in the public square, at least in any society that dares call itself democratic. To discover those other questions, buy the book!

Phil Johnson's newest book is witty, incredibly insightful, and to the point. In less than two hundred pages, Johnson puts forth a devestating critique of modern materialist science and knowledge while putting forth his own models of each based on empirical investigation and the acknowledgement of personality and information as more fundemental than matter. Johnson points out that as long as chance and law are the only explanations allowed by the scientific elite as answers to the problem of the origin of genetic information, science will continue to spin its wheels in the mud and spin out more hollow just-so stories of how "evolution done it". Only when scientists recognize that complex, specified information is the hallmark of intelligent activity will the life sciences make real progress toward true explanations. A great read for the open minded.

Over the past several years I have read a number of books both for and against the theory of evolution. One of these books was in fact Darwin's original thesis, "The Origin of Species." Some of the others have been books that try to defeat Darwin by presenting a myriad of counter evidence which the author believes is proof that Darwin's theory is false. However, they usually end up being just as guilty as Darwin in making untested assumptions and sweeping generalizations. The end result is that these books aren't very convincing unless you read them having a completely bias view to begin with.

Phillip Johnson's book is entirely different. He makes the argument that simply showing tidbits of evidence which might be compatible with an evolving earth isn't the same as proving the fundamental tenants of the theory. Providing these tidbits of information is exactly what scientific naturalists have been doing all along. His purpose isn't to prove creationism to be true, but rather to show how flawed the "evidence" for evolution really is. Whatever your personal beliefs may be, you will view the lack of evidence for evolution in a different light after you read "Darwin on Trial." I give Johnson two thumbs up!

Darwin on Trial was one of the pivotal books that launched the "Intelligent Design" movement. In truth, the book isn't brilliant - it doesn't need to be. Darwinism is fundamentally flawed, and simple logic (with a healthy dose of facts) shows how weak the theory really is.

Johnson's major contribution is demonstrating how Darwinism isn't a scientific theory, but a clever rhetorical trick that dresses up religious notions as science. If you think about it, Darwinism is essentially meaningless. Darwin says, "The species that survive are the species that are best fitted to survive." That statement is objectively meaningless. But philosophers have dressed up this statement in fancy verbage to make it sound like a meaningful proposition when it reality it tells us nothing about how life developed or why.

Johnson is not a Creationist (i.e., he doesn't believe that the world is 6,000 years or that dinosaurs roamed the decks of Noah's ark). The fact that establishment scientists feel the need to portray him as a Creationist shows how strong Johnson's argument really is.

This is an excellent starting point for deeper explorations into ID.

In this book, Phillip Johnson uses evolutionists' own words to show just how unsure of the theory of evolution they really are. And if evolutionists recognize the fatal flaws in their own theory, what of the rest of us? This is a stunning book, not because of its conclusions, but because of who draws them -- the very people who hold to the theory themselves. In their own words, if evolutionists could find another theory besides creation to explain the origin of life and its modification over the years, they'd abandon evolution in a millisecond. What is frightening is that it's only the people at the forefront of evolution who recognize its flaws. The way evolution is presented to the public is as if it's fact, and it's taught as fact, when the people who are in the position to know the most recognize publicly that it's built on sand. Anyone who believes that evolution is a widely accepted view in the scientific community needs to read this book.

Wow, looks like Johnson hurt the feelings of the Publisher's Weekly reviewer. I thought the book was OK. Johnson's point is well made, if you start the debate assuming everything started with atoms and physical laws, you'll never come up with anything else besides evolution. Any set of assumptions that always yields one conclusion needs to be questioned.

If you want a more rigorous and academic treatment of the same subject read Wiker's Moral Darwinism.

One criticism that Johnson has been subject to by the religious community is, although he has shown Darwinism suffers from major problems (and that these need to be dealt with by the scientific community) what about the religious issue? Many scientists have shown the many major problems with Darwinism (and hundreds of books now exist effectively documenting these). Most of these books then develop the author's new theory of evolution that he or she claims is superior to neoDarwinism. An example is Lynn Margulis has eloquently shown mutation driven Darwinism to be entirely inadequate and then proposed the new theory of symbiosis which, she argues, is superior. This new theory, though, still does not explain the arrival of the genes, only the widespread spread of certain genes, at least in bacteria. Also, the question on many readers minds is, does a theory of Naturalism explain reality? This book deals with the religious concern to some degree. It also focuses on Johnson's major stroke at age 61 and the profound impact of this event on his life, especially his religious life. It is an honest book in which Johnson grapples with the religious questions most of us ask at one time or another in life. As such, this book would be of special interest to persons who have an interest in spiritual concerns (atheists would be turned off by this work; I know I once was one). It shows, in response to Johnson's critics, that he does have a spiritual side (or at least he does now after his stroke) and is not just a Darwin critic as are thousands of other intellectuals (especially biologists, my profession). Since this book is a different kind of book then Johnson's other books, it is especially easy to spot reviews by those who have not read it, but just want to slam Johnson because they do not hold to the view that a God exists that has done something active to the creation in the past. There is no topic that elicits as strong emotions as does religion, as our war on terrorism eloquently shows.

With plenty of quotes from leading scientists, Johnson exposes the prevalent materialist philosophy espoused by many contemporary scientists and how that mindset colors their findings. Among other things, he argues that the materialist or naturalist philosophy of these scientists has hijacked various scientific disciplines to the point that practitioners do not present Darwinian evolution as theory but as indisputable fact. Johnson cites that science has evolved to the point that educational institutions don't present viable alternatives to Darwinism (such as the theory of intelligent design) because the scientific elite have a vested interest in propagating their mindset-a mindset which is strongly biased against the idea that there is an intelligent creator. The book is not so much about evolution versus fundamentalist creationism (indeed, Johnson strongly opposes fundamentalism) as it is about the need to teach theory as theory and reject those ideas which result from the philosophical biases of certain scientists.

One does not need to believe in Creationism in order to oppose Darwinism. Evolution is indeed one of the biggest jokes in scientific history. It is the modern version of ancient myths in explaining the origin of life.

Great subject for a book, but I would have preferred more critical commentary from qualified scientists and educators. This book does a great job in covering the theological debate over evolution, but is short on biogenesis, how life first formed.

"Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins" is a discussion between the darling of conservative Christianity, Phillip E. Johnson, and evangelical Christian Denis O. Lamoureux, commented by scientists on both side of the issue (Behe, Van Till, Denton, etc.). Although much of the discussion is about whether one can be a Christian and still accept "Darwinism", I can still recommend it to atheists and people who's more concerned about the scientific merit of IDism.

Johnson gets beat up like you wouldn't believe it. First, Lamoureux delivers a 40-page critique of Johnson, his arguments, and his books. He even uses Johnson's own "baloney detector" (stolen from Sagan) to show why Johnson's books are full of BS. Johnson answers by saying that he's only interested in answering the main points, and then presents a rebuttal only 8 pages long, where he manages to completely evade all of Lamoureux's points, and instead talk about how evil atheism is.

Lamoureux notes how disapointed he is with Johnson's behaviour, and then repeats the many points of his that Johnson "forgot" to adress. Johnson's response? To offer a transcript of a radio interview by Dobson, interviewing Johnson on his influence on evangelism!

It is hardly surprising that the IDists, supposed to comment on the debate, all refuse to actually talk about Lamoureux's trashing of Johnson, but instead starts discussing the origin of life and Dembski's filter. As icing on the cake, Denton (author of "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis") appologizes for confusing "Darwinism" with "evolution", then proceeds to talk about biogeography and the molecular data, and how silly it makes "special creation" look.

This is drivel, unworthy of the paper its printed on. Phil should evolve a brain.

As a defender of creation science, Phillip Johnson is a breath of fresh air. Nowhere are there indefensible scientific arguments for a young earth, or a worldwide flood that accounts for the fossil record, or any of the other endlessly recycled Henry Morris/Duane Gish nonsense that makes up so much of the creationist "young earth" camp. Johnson frames the question more on a philosophical level, pitting the presuppositions of both camps against one another (materialistic naturalism vs. theistic supernaturalism), and attempting to show that adherents of the first camp make just as many untestable and unsupportable assumptions as the adherents of the second. Johnson is a talented writer, and presents a positive argument for "opening" the debate by forcing the evolutionists to relax their dogmatic hold on the thinking in academia, and allow for a more open and free discussion of the actual issues, including evidence for supernatural intervention in the creation and evolution of life.

Unfortunately, the only positive evidence Johnson suggests is Michael Behe's irreducible complexity argument, which is just a repackaged intelligent design model, and the conventional attack on biology's admitted problem with the incompleteness of the fossil record. Throughout the book, Johnson emphasizes the dominance of the materialistic philosophy that pervades every aspect of modern public education and academia. This predisposition, he argues, hopelessly biases any approach to scientific facts and prevents scientists from appreciating the fuller truth that's out there if only they would open their eyes (minds). Johnson repeatedly mischaracterizes the practice of science and the state of affairs in biological circles.

Johnson's representation of the state of open mindedness in contemporary education is questionable. He seems to assume that the dominate role of a college education is to force memorization of a list of "materialistic" facts upon impressionable minds. As an educator, I see the situation as exactly the opposite. Thoughtful reflection and open minded investigation are far more common than Johnson seems to think.

A few specific examples where I think Johnson misses the boat just as badly: page 113 "Evolutionary biology is a field whose cultural importance far outstrips its modest intellectual and scientific content." I think most biologists would take issue with the characterization of the content of their science as "modest."

Page 114 "Biologists are at each others throats in private, fighting over every detail in the Darwinist scientific program. The versions of 'evolution' promulgated by Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould , for example, have hardly anything in common except their common adherence to philosophical materialism and their mutual dislike for supernatural creation." He goes on to strongly imply that this ongoing debate is somehow being hidden. Anything but. I assume Johnson has read Dawkins' and Gould's books and should know better. As for their versions of evolution being so different, I'd venture to say that their agreements are far more substantial than their disagreements, and maybe Johnson should examine the actual differences between the scientific views of Michael Behe and Duane Gish, for example. Other creationists have similarly sought to highlight and utilize the differences between various cosmologists and, for instance, the issue of the age of the universe. While there might be legitimate and sometimes bitter disputes between astrophysicists over the size of the Hubble Constant, this dispute hardly gives any hope to the young- earther who is holding out for a 6000 year old universe.

Johnson's use of the example of evangelist Billy Graham deciding against studying the natural sciences and liberal theologies of his contemporaries strikes me as odd. If the naturalistic position is so untenable due to its weak foundation, what does Christianity and creation science have to fear by its presence in academia? How would Billy Graham's witness and testimony for Christianity have been weakened by studying the opposing philosophies? Is Johnson suggesting that attrition from traditional evangelical and fundamentalist circles can be stemmed by preventing the study of modern science?

Johnson's book is admittedly aimed at young readers, students who are going off to college to be faced with the inevitable "indoctrination" of materialism. But I'm not sure what his bottom line advice is for them. Does he wish them to shun the life sciences (as well as astronomy, archeology, geology, and other sciences) where the creation science theories will receive little sympathy? Or does he expect their professors to actually engage in the debate over the relative merits of their respective presuppositions? Does he believe that Christianity (or any religion) actually has anything to fear from the discoveries of science?

I wish Johnson well. His logic and rhetoric are powerful and he's a good arguer. However, I fear that his tactics will not advance the cause of creation science very much. Until scientists who believe in supernatural creation are willing to go toe to toe in the scientific journals, arguments of materialistic bias will yield few advances in the understanding of the origin of life.

And even if they do, this approach is destined to fail. Science is the study of phenomena that can be observed, tested, and replicated. Science relies on the construction of logical arguments that can be supported or falsified by such observation and testing. By definition, science will seek explanations for the apparently unexplainable. This is implicit in the process of scientific discovery. Religious belief systems ask that we accept as true that which cannot be seen or tested (Hebrews 11:1). Religion seeks certainty and welcomes the appeal to authority (e.g., thus saith the Lord). It is at this point that the two belief systems must part ways and agree to pursue their independent goals. Forcing one upon the other results in untenable scientific positions (such as most of creation science) or watered down and compromised religious traditions bereft of their spiritual meaning.

What makes this book interesting reading is that Johnson identifies the underlying philosophy of the Theory of evolution:a philosophy which denies the existence of anything outside of nature (if this is not a proper deffinition, please forgive me)which includes the God of the Bible. Now whether or not this philosophy is true is a vast issue of its own, but Johnson points out that all scientific evidence is interpretted in this view which instead of allowing the evidence to speak for itself all fossils,biology etc., is looked at as being part of the purposeless, mindless process.

Furthermore, Johnson wrote Defeating Darwinism to help equip people to identify and deal with the logical falicies in the Theory of Evolution and the tactics used by many evolutionists to avoid admitting the weak spots of the theory. In this I think he proves himself well and for those who are teetering between evolution and creationism this book is especially for you.

I do not recommend this book to prove to you that Evolution is evil and wrong as some have alluded to but I do recommend this book to open your mind to another view point of this most incredible theory. Is not this what the scientific method and the progression of science are all about?

This is an excellent introduction to scientific evidence for a creative agent. Although I found some of the criticisms of Darwinism a wee bit ad-hoc, the book as a whole has some powerful arguments from the likes of some of the more noteworthy theists such as JP Moreland, Michael Dembski and Hugh Ross. Ross' essay was probably the best in the book as it dealt with clear, un-ambiguous evidence for a supreme mind. There is also an interesting article on the specificity of language being a sound analogy to the specificity & complexity of DNA.

Now, many of the reviewers who gave it one star do not appear to have even read it. Two of them bragged as much. Regardless of the subject matter of a book, I often find it difficult to review a work w/out reading it. I can only cast my suspicion on other people's ability to do so.

One of the most frequent criticisms of "Creationism" (for lack of a better term) is that it is unfalsifiable & therefore bad science. I concede the point that it is unfalsifiable, but I would caution an atheist against calling it bad science.

Most physicists believe they have it all figured out up to 10^-43 power of one second after the Big Bang (known as the Planck Epoch). Beyond this instant (an incredibly small instant) the universe existed in the state of a singularity of infinite density and infinite temperature. The laws of physics as we know and love them came into being at 10^-43 of one second. Therefore, if the atheist is not to insert an arbitrary double-standard, ALL speculations and theories of "what happened before" MUST be labeled as bad science. I know of few atheists who are willing to demote Sagan's oscillating universe theory or the universe as a quantum-fluctuation-gone-awry paradigm as bad science. However, the atheist cannot have it both ways.

Also, due to the enormous "specificity" in the laws of physics which were necessary for life (also known as the Anthropic Principle) the rival claim of the atheist to an intelligent designer is the multiple universe theorem. The idea is that since the odds are so incredible that a universe such as ours' could have emerged from a singularity "just so" (according to the British physicist Roger Penrose the odds are of the magnitude of 10^10^123), there must be many (perhaps an infinite number) of alternate universes. Why? To justify this one. Otherwise, it is mathematically unacceptable to believe that this could be the only universe and yet it turned out "just so."

Now, I have no problem with atheists formulating hypotheses such as this. However, when they do so they are commiting the same "crime" that they are accusing the Creationists of. Again, you can't have it both ways.

Ultimately, whatever one tries to "place" before the Planck epoch and "outside" this universe is going to be a bad Hypothesis. Period. No matter if it comes from the calibre of a scientist such as Feynman, Dyson or Hawking, it is STILL incapable of being proven or disproven. So, all we can do is take the data that is inside THIS universe & make our inference from there. This book is a good tool for those on both sides of the debate to do just that. If you are close minded (as most of the 1 star reviewers are), there is no need to bother reading any books in the realm of cosmology.

For futher reading on the Anthropic Principle I would recommend "Universes" by the philospoher of science John Leslie. A great book.

This is what a teleological argument should look like. Moreland is concise and logical as always. Dhembski's philosophical spadework is GREAT. But Meyer's contribution seems a bit irrelevent. In terms of the actual evidence: Hugh Ross does a pretty good job in physics, cosmology, and astronomy. Bradly and Thraxton are EXCELLENT in analyzing the origin of life! Geologist Kurt P. Wise has some very clever arguments on the fossil record. The language guys are inferior, though. I am majoring in both philosophy and biology and enjoyed the combination of both science and philosophy. Usually books on evolution and such overkill on evidence without ever putting it in the form of a valid argument. And I am talking about both theists and non-theists. The book is written professionally so those who wish to do more research will find the endnotes and bibliography very helpful. esp Yockey's book.

A well written and thought provoking book that is detailed and scientifically valid. Those who state otherwise either have not read the book, or do not know how to conduct philosophic and scientific inquiry.

J. P. Moreland and a panel of experts consider philosophical arguments about whether it is possible for us to know if an intelligent Designer had a role in creation. Then they evaluate the creation hypothesis against scientific evidence in four different areas: the origin and formation of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of major groups of organisms, and the origin of human language.

The team of experts assembled for this work includes a philosopher, a mathemetician, a physicist, a linguist, a theologian, a biophysicist, an astronomer, a chemist, and a paleontologist.

The contributors include Stephen C. Meyer, William A. Dembski, Hugh Ross, Walter L. Bradley, Charles B. Thaxton, Kurt P. Wise, John W. Oller, John L. Omdahl, John Ankerberg, and John Weldon.

Their data and their conclusions challenge the assumptions of many and offer the foundation for a new paradigm of scientific thinking.

Hank Hanegraaff deserves an award for putting together an excellent and memorable addition to the many books which reveal the farcical nature of evolutionary theory. As I have followed the Creation/Evolution debate in-depth and have even written my own book on the subject, I think I am qualified to say that, although much of Hanks information is not new, his approach and style which aids people in memorizing the facts is. Although it is commonplace for evolutionists and other "believers" to ad hominem attack people who differ with them on the scientific evidence, Hank provides clear evidence from both evolutionist and creationist scientists that evolution is a theory in serious factual crisis (as the title of one evolutionist's book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" points out). It is easy for some with biased and ulterior motives to ad hominem attack Hank by saying he quotes authorities out of context or quotes "irresponsible" statements by scientists.

However, instead of merely making unsubstantiated assertions, I decided to actually CHECK the authorities Hank quoted. My findings? Out of 64 quoted authorities surveyed, 36 were secondary sources (evolutionists quoted in creationist material), and 28 were primary sources (actual evolutionists quoted in their material). From my own personal library, I was only able to check 23 of the 64 quotations. Out of the 23 quotes checked NOT ONE WAS OUT OF CONTEXT OR MISREPRESENTED IN ANY WAY. This includes 8 primary creationist sources, 10 primary evolutionist sources, and 5 secondary evolutionist sources. It was actually getting tiresome to keep checking the quotes, since every one was turning up 100% accurate in detail and contextual content. This is what factual evidence shows, and I challenge any HONEST person to go even further than I have and find anything different. And how exactly does one judge a statement by a non-creationist scientist as "irresponsible"? Simply because it may go against the grain of established evolutionary dogma? That seems like wishful thinking at best, and self-serving ideological bias at worst.

Once the "smoke and mirrors" of pro-evolutionary speculators using ad hoc rescues is dismissed, we find that Hank provides an excellent way to remember the fallacies of this science fiction pretending to be pure scientific knowledge. He employs the acronym FACE, which means Fossil Follies, Ape-Men Fiction, Frauds, and Fantasy, Chance, and Empirical science.

From the Fossil follies section, we learn that the fossil record is indeed "an embarrassment to evolutionists," so much so that new and innovative theories of punctuated equilibrium had to be invented to explain away the very real gaps in the record, gaps which should not be there according to Darwin's own theory (pp. 33, 42-44). Some have argued that there are "intermediates," and yet after so many millions of years of alleged evolutionary change, we only have about "two dozen" examples. That makes little sense, and the evidence from even some evolutionists shows that how one views a "transitional" form can be very subjective.

In the section on the Ape-Men and the fictions and frauds, Hank provides substantial evidence of the mishaps and mistakes science has made in an attempt to find and categorize the "missing" evolutionary link between homo sapiens and his supposed ancestors like Nebraska Man, Java Man, Piltdown Man, and Peking Man. All of these were either outright frauds, misinterpretations of data, or serious cover-ups with deception in mind. I would have liked to have seen information on Donald Johanson's "Lucy" and other australopithicines in this chapter since they are but more examples of scientists forcing evolutionary interpretations on the evidence; another example of what Hank seems to be pointing at.

In the third letter of the acronym FACE we find Hank explaining one of the pillars of evolutionary theory, which is time mixing with "Chance." Chance in evolutionary theory is not denied by any evolutionary advocate, except those who would seek to lower the role chance plays in evolution for obvious reasons. As Hank puts it, "Thus, chance implies the absence of both a design and a designer....Consider the absurdity of boldly asserting that an eye, egg, or the earth, each in its vast complexity, is merely a function of random chance" (pp. 61, 62). In Darwin's time, ignorance could cover the wild assumptions of time and chance, working with "natural selection" and mutations to create complex structures. But today, our knowledge precludes such assumptions (the reader is encouraged to read of the intricacies of how sight works in Hank's extensive notes). Chance, as the evidence from science in this book shows, cannot adequately explain the organized complexity of our world.

The last letter in Hank's acronym stands for Empirical science. This is where the rubber meets the road, and the true test of whether or not the theory of evolution is purely about verifiable scientific evidence. Hank points out, among other things, that creationists are often caricatured in popular culture and literature as "bigoted ignoramuses" while evolutionists are pictured as "benevolent intellectuals" (p. 77). However, Hank points out that many great pioneering scientists of the past were creationists, e.g., Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel, and Johannes Kepler. Thus the caricature is proven to be just that. Hank points out other empirical scientific facts which militate against evolutionary theory, including knowledge from what we KNOW from cause and effect, energy conservation, entropy, and common sense reason. Finally, Hank revisits the debunked but still used recapitulation theory (the "R" added to FACE to get FARCE) and goes on to conclude with appendixes to help people argue more rationally, know the veracity of the Bible as a divine Book, understand the truthfulness of Christ's Resurrection, Annihilate abortion arguments, and see the moral ramifications of human cloning. Kudos to Hank for doing a great job and putting the FACTS out there that many simply will not FACE.

Hank Hanegraaff's approach to the creation-evolution controversy is excellent. It is very obvious that he has done his homework...and done it well. Instead of attacking evolutionists or characterizing them as evil, he looks at the facts. His acronym FACE (Fossil Fallacies, Ape Man Fiction, Frauds and Fantasy, Chance, and Empirical Science) makes it easy to recall the relevant points. He is thorough, while still keeping the issues at the "layman" level. For those interested in further study (on either side of the issue), he sites all sources.

Hanegraaff demonstrates a clear grasp of the issues and of the controversy around those issues. While many may still disagree with his views, he has proven himself once again to be an intellegent, well-studied author of integrity. I recommend reading this book with an open mind before dismissing creationism as a "crock"!

Hank is terrific!
Not much is new stuff here, folks. It's a reminder to us that evolution really has been proven wrong. Not many can take this harsh dose of reality, as you can see.

An interesting exploration of why science and its claims ought not to be accepted at face value, but should at least be challenged on the basis that its foundations (and therefore results) are assumed, and frequently assumed to be other than they are. Johnson is a Christian, a Creationist ~ though not one of those wrong-headed usually called Creation-Scientists ~ and a strong writer. This is a book of philosophy (i think), and i am not a deep thinker, so i found it slow going; i did find his conclusions ~ essentially that science/naturistic materialism is speaking to things it is not competent to speak to, including origins and purposes, in the insistance that such questions must not be asked ~ convincing, but then i am frequently impressed by what i have recently read. I should like to read a critique of Johnson by someone who takes him and the questions seriously ~ which all too many reviewers and disputants apparently do not.

My doctoral dissertation is an investgation into the beliefs of scientists. Briefly I found that most scientists hold very metaphysical beliefs . When it comes to evolution most of them accept the current materialistic worldview but few of them defend it strongly. It is rather held because nothing else is around.

I started my investigation into Darwinism expecting to gradually understand it better and deepen my confidence in it. Naturally I began with the experts- Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, simpson . To date I have read over 50 books - some very detailed indeed. I have also taught biology at undergraduate level. The opposite has happened , it seems the more I study the more it appears that much of Darwinism, especially the overall materialistic , chance driven worldview seems to be held on faith rather than convincing evidence. Certainly it is a valid viewpoint but I was given to believe that there was little doubt in the matter.

Johnson's book is an enormous pleasure to read. His writing is beautifully lucid. He is honest about his Christian bias and , I feel, he gets right to the heart of the matter. Really this book deserves to be read by everyone. I personally find belief in God eeven less likely than Neo-Darwinism but I admire the way Johnson reveals his faith. I would love to correspond with a man like this - after reading his book I feel he is wise friend indeed.

Johnson turns the tables on those who accuse "theistic realists" of dogmatic irrationality.

For me, the most important part of this book is how Johnson details the marginalization in the public discourse of anyone who questions the accepted naturalistic worldview and the hypocrisy of those who would silence them. What I observe on this page:

The March 3, 2000 review states: "he is also a professor of law with a limited understanding of how science works". So there is a need for high priests after all?

Or the Dec. 25, 1999 review: "Science deals with the observable and the measurable, not with metaphysical definitions." Except when Hawking and his peers are moved to put forth their unmeasurable proposals?

I see.