Click to Order

A dispassionately logical assessment that gets right down to the philosophical underpinnings of Darwinism. Insistence on a naturalist, materialist explanation as the only kind acceptable as scientific, with "science" redefined to suit, produces a world view in which Darwinism must be defended as fact whatever its deficiencies, since no alternative meeting the criterion is available. The result is not the testing of a theory but a scramble to produce evidence to support a predetermined conclusion--largely unsuccessfully, as Johnson shows. What credentials does a law professor have to write on such a subject? When it comes to evaluating the merits of a case based on evidence and argument, maybe quite a lot.