Faith Well Grounded

Since its printing, Johnson has come under much fire from those on the opposite side of the argument, and this is to be expected. Most of the criticism is based on the accusations that he treats the subject as a lawyer, and uses law practices (such as suppression of evidence, misdirection, etc...) to bolster his arguments. With that said, I will not speak to these accusations, as I'm not really the person to do so.

I'm really not even going to speak much on the evidences presented for his argument, or the lack of evidence presented which could have damaged his argument. The reason for this is that the book's power is not in swapping evidences. I find this form of debate eventually falls into useless tedium and almost never makes the point of the debate.

Johnson's power is of a more presuppositional nature. He makes a powerful argument that (neo)Darwinian Evolution decides the results before hand and then interprets the evidences accordingly. In other words, naturalistic evolution is the only acceptable answer, therefor all evidence is interpreted in a "must-have" framework.

And he makes this argument very convincingly.

No book on the subject is going to be a silver bullet. Any subject as fiercely divided as evolution will produce poles of emotion. This book is no different. If your worldview is friendly to evolution, then you will not be impressed by this book. You may even get a bit perturbed. If you are predisposed to a skepticism of evolution, then you will probably very much appreciate "Darwin on Trial". I don't foresee a middle ground.

I liked the book. I think a lot of good points are made. If you want your skepticism of evolution fed, read it. If you are an evolutionist and want something to spike your blood pressure, read it.

Don't get the misunderstanding that this book is some dry, dusty theology manual in disguise. It is quite the literary accomplishemnt, and stands on its own as a work of brilliant fiction. As a matter of fact, it ranks right up there with his Narnia collection, though it is much different in genre, style and subject matter.

But then again, it is much more than a work of fiction. It is a brilliant satire of human nature. It is also a brilliant insight into the unseen forces that shape our societies and personal beliefs. As a Christian philosopher, I thoroughly enjoyed the principles of the natural and supernatural-- sometimes blatant, sometimes subtle-- that were knitted throughout the letters.

Lewis was a brilliant philosopher, though some neglect to give him this due. His keen insight into human nature and the core of Christianity just sweat their way out of the pages. He emphasizes the important things in the religion (things underemphasized by most), and satires the unimportant (which too many overemphasize). Of most notable, Lewis uses this work as a way to remind us that Christianity is about getting outside of ourselves. It is about loving God and heeding totally that relationship. It is also about loving others. Only when we turn out attention outward do we live up to our calling into His Kingsom.

I gave it a 9-- not necessarily because I could find anything wrong with it, but maybe merely because I can't bring myself to call anything perfect. If I must quote a failure of the book, I guess I'll just mark it for being 224 pages. I could have spied on the "enemy camp" for weeks on end.

I guess a reread is in order...

Now, if you raised your eyebrows at my foray into the supernatural, if you filter everything through naturalistic presuppositions, read the book anyway. Take it as a satire of the human condition and enjoy it. Or, read with an open mind. Then pick up a copy of "Miracles" by the same author. I can think of no one better than Lewis to point out the confines and self-refuting nature of your presuppositions. :)

This was one of my first reads in apologetics, and it was what actually gave me such a desire to follow the field of study. Geisler is as well-spoken as ever, and the logical proofs used in the first section of the books were very well done. Not only did He use the many logical proofs of God and describe them, but He also combined them into a larger logical line of thought that defined God as the only Being capable of fulfilling the needed logical outcome. As an added bonus, he also followed his conclusion with responses to possible criticisms. He followed the logical opening with sections on competing worldviews, the questions concerning evil, Jesus Christ, the Bible, Archaeology, miracles, evolution, the afterlife, truth and morality. All were equally as well done and offered much introductory insight into the subject.

I rated the book a solid 8 due solely to its use as an introduction to apologetics. It will never take the place of in-depth studies in logic, critical thinking, archaeology, etc... The content for each subject is fairly brief, only offering enough to make the point and lead to the next. This is especially true of sections such as Bible difficulties and archaeology. But in all fairness, I'm quite sure that the authors prepared this as an introductory volume with an eye to covering as many subjects as possible. In this, they succeeded.