In chapter 12 of this book Johnson deals with the Irrationality of Evolution. The goal of this particular chapter is to show not only that (macro) Evolution cannot be proven but that the presupposition of Naturalism that lies behind it cannot even support its own claims. Thus, Naturalism is inconsistent and irrational (see definition 2). To make his terms clear Johnson writes "Microevoltuion is a fact that is easily demonstrated by taking note of the different ethnicities of people that have developed along geographical lines. Macroevolution, on the other hand, is the theory that the complexities of the human race have evolved from non-living matter through the slow process of adaptation" (pg. 141).
So, the goal of his chapter is not to say that species don't adapt but that it is absurd to think that macroevolution is a tenable position to hold (i.e. a fish evolving into a kangaroo). It is not my goal to put forth in detail all of Dr. Johnson's arguments, for that you need to buy the book! Also, anything not argued well in this blog is not a representation of Dr. Johnson, but of my own inability to communicate his ideas as clearly as he did! With that in mind, let me list 9 convincing reasons why macroevolution is bunk according to this chapter:
1. It is irrational to think that life can come from non-life
"Life evolving from non-life goes against the law of biogenesis." Often, macroevolutionists want to say they love 'science.' And yet, "there has been no observable exception to this rule" of the inability of life coming from non-life. (pg. 143).
2. Only preexisting traits can evolve
"Bird beaks can get longer or shorter, but there is no empirical evidence that beaks turn into snouts" (pg. 142). So, I think this sort of fits in with the recent 'controversy' between Ken Ham and Kenneth D. Keathley. I think Johnson makes the point very plainly that reptile scales can't turn into feathers. There's simply no empirical evidence for such absurdity. Both of Ham and Keathley, as well as Johnson, are miles ahead of me intellectually but for what it's worth, it appears to me that Keathley has misrepresented Ham's position on evolution (link).
3. Macro Evolution fails to explain how the reproductive system ever gets started
"Survival of the fittest demands that the reproductive system be already functioning before any adaptations can take place. Rocks do not mutate or reproduce themselves" (pg.143-144).
4. It is impossible for the simplest cells to have evolved from less complex cells
"The simplest cell is irreducibly complex...All the different components of the simplest cell..are needed for it to be able to reproduce itself...So, if the unnecessary parts are discarded in the evolutionary process the simplest cell had to come together simultaneously" (pg. 148).
5. If the evolutionary process eliminates that which is non-useful we would never have eyes
5% of an eye isn't a functioning eye. It can't see. It's not useful. How would 'natural selection' increase the function of a non-functioning eye? (see page 150).
6. It cannot give account for consciousness
"Consciousness, which includes self-awreness and willful intent, cannot be reduced to merely physical properties" (pg. 152).
7. It is not supported by the fossil records
Two arguments here really. The 'missing links' are still missing! And secondly, the Cambrian explosion discredits Darwin's theory of 'small incremental change' (see pg. 154).
8. Evolution is Based in a Naturalistic Worldview, Not Science
Johnson cites author and scientist Richard Lewontin who says "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism" (pg. 155)
In other words, I think a lot of people are 'convinced' of (macro) evolution because they can't fathom that a community of scientists could possibly be wrong. But when we examine the case for macroevolution we see that it doesn't stem from hard facts but from presuppositions. "To abandon belief in evolution would require naturalists to abandon their faith-commitment in naturalism...[But] naturalism is not only a worldview that fails to be supported by the evidence, it is a worldview that fails to provide answers for the existence of the immaterial laws of science - the very foundation on which naturalism is ostensibly built" (pg. 158-160).
9. Evolution still can't explain the origin of life
This is really dealt with more in chapter 11, but it is worthy of repeating in this post. If there were ever a time that 'nothing' existed, then nothing would still exist today. The only rational explanation to our universe is that it was created by our eternal triune God.
I want to stress again, the above is just a SMALL taste of the chapter and even smaller taste of the entire book! I encourage you to pick it up and read it for yourself. See quotes from important scientists (both atheists and believers). See more discussion about each of the things I listed above. See more discussion on the cell and DNA and RNA. Dr. Johnson goes into great details on these matters to demonstrate the absurdity that stems from unbelief in our Triune God. This book is so much more than just about 'evolution.' But this chapter has been one of my favorites thus far. It is well worth your time to read especially in a day where macro evolution seems to be accepted as 'fact' and any who oppose it are seen as ignorant. Johnson does an excellent job in this chapter of turning all of that on its head.
Romans 1:18 still holds true today. There are many who suppress the truth of our great and glorious God. The result? Absurdity.