For a carefully written, down-to-earth discussion of the theory of evolution by natural selection and the empirical evidence both for and against it, I recommend that you read Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species".

It continues to amaze me how few people actually spend the time with this eminently readable book that it deserves. Unlike so many modern authors on both sides of the subject, Darwin wrote clearly, confronted the issues head on, and considered the empirical evidence against the theory just as carefully as he did the evidence for it. The only axe he had to grind was the relentless pursuit of the truth through careful observation and persistent study. He worked quietly and diligently to gather the evidence presented in the "Origin" for over 20 years, carefully dissecting and describing specimens from around the world, before his colleagues were finally able to persuade him to publish it in 1859.

The result is a careful, cautious scientific treatise that has revolutionized the study of relationships among living creatures--and says little (if anything) about the relationship between God and humankind. While Darwin himself may well have lost his own Christian faith during these years (possibly as a result of losing a beloved child to a childhood illness), he carefully avoided saying anything to damage the Christian faith of others. Generous to a fault, he consistently went out of his way to treat those who disagreed with him respectfully. I wish I could say the same of more writers on this volatile subject.

Do read Phillip Johnson's book. Johnson is an intelligent and engaging lawyer who writes well on a subject that matters to him a great deal. But--please--read Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" as well. I think you will be pleasantly surprised by the quiet, gentle and thorough scientist you meet in its pages.

A readable style, combined with short sentences and short essays overall, make this volume of book reviews and essays just the prescription for a busy person interested in some of the cultural and philosophical issues surrounding the origins debate. Johnson's basic position can be summed up by a sentence on page 61: "Darwinism is a lot stronger as philosophy than it is as empirical science." He demonstrates this fact by coming at it from several angles in the various articles. One of the interesting facts Johnson reveals is that some evolutionists use the same scorn and ridicule (rather than evidence) to attack each other as they do to attack the hated "creationists." The punctuated equilibria evolutionists call the natural selection evolutionists "Darwinian fundamentalists," while the natural selection evolutionists call the punctuated equilibria folks, "Punk eeks" and call the theory "evolution by jerks." Johnson believes that Darwinism has ten more years only before it gets relegated to history classes. Whether or not that is the case, the next ten years should prove very interesting in this arena.

Some of Reviews of this book, while praising Johnson's efforts, conclude that he should stick to the field of his expertise, and not write about "science". We are then urged to read "Origin of the Species" and note how reasoned it is etc. I did read Origin of the Species a couple of times years before Johnson came along. One of the things that bothered me about it was it made such quantum leaps from simple premises to complex conclusions. The problem is with the logic and that is an area that a law professor is eminently equipped to analyze and criticize. It is not difficult to show flaws in logic when Darwin argues from micro changes within a species to the conclusion that macro evolution has occurred from one species to another. As a matter proof, Darwin's logic is flawed. He was lionized primarily because he gave the scientific community something to hang their hats on so that they could espouse a theory (now called fact) that could be substituted for a creation. Johnson should continue his efforts to expose fuzzy thinking.