"Excellent read! This was just the book I was looking for: an honest and sincere evaluation of the flaws in macroevolutionary theory (or Darwinian naturalism) on its own merits, regardless of creationism or any kind of religion. I greatly enjoyed Johnson’s perspective in this one. His voice was genuine, and he did a good job of keeping his own bias out of the discussion. It's a bit dated, from 1993, but still very relevant for today's audience.

Having just read Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong, I found these two books paired together well. Many of the studies Johnson mentions had already been exposed to me by Wells as severely flawed, which gave even more credence to Johnson's points. I still find it incredible that Johnson himself is not a scientist, but a lawyer, and his clear, un-slanted take on macroevolutionary theory is valuable for any layman (any fellow non-scientist) in their quest to judge the case fairly. I want more of this type of writing!

Next, I want to read Johnson's Defeating Darwinism.

Quote:
“I am not a defender of creation-science, and in fact I am not concerned in this book with addressing any conflicts between the Biblical accounts and the scientific evidence. My purpose is to examine the scientific evidence on its own terms, being careful to distinguish the evidence itself from any religious or philosophical bias that might distort our interpretation of that evidence.... The question I want to investigate is whether Darwinism is based upon a fair assessment of the scientific evidence, or whether it is another kind of fundamentalism.�"

"I dig it. There are a lot of negative reviews of it on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ, mostly about it being derivative, and/or unnecessarily characterizing the creative process as a struggle. Guys: you picked up a self-help book. You picked up a book called "The War of Art". If you hoped for originality, or a touchy-feely art-is-easy book, you made a strange decision. I'm just saying.

Personally, I found this book pretty useful. It's dense, wise, and low-bullshit. Spiritual, yes. Namby-pamby, no. It treats inspiration as a mystery (because, um, it is). It does not treat art as a mystery. It says, you can't manufacture inspiration, so get your butt in the chair, every day, and do the work so inspiration has the opportunity to come.

I'm intrigued by his idea that the difference between a professional artist and an amateur is that the professional artist loves the art enough to arrange her/his life to allow him/her to do it full-time. An amateur, he says, isn't someone who does it only for the love; if the amateur really loved the art s/he wouldn't be content to be a weekend warrior. An amateur identifies with the work: "I make sandwiches for a living, and I'm an artist", whereas a professional does the work for its own sake: "I'm a person who writes novels for a living."

He also does this Jungian analysis of where art comes from and where internal resistance comes from. I'm sure it's not earthshattering, but I'd never heard it before."

"Finally finished this giant textbook on illustration. This is the best textbook not only on illustration but also for the entire visual art universe. Yet it's written in 1947. The pictures in the book might not be updated anymore but since art skills and our visual perception changed very slowly (it relies on genetic mutation generation by generation), you will find this book valuable even in this photoshopsnique epoch. It would be wonderful if there is a textbook just like this one in the 20s of the 21st century. There are way too many uncreative fine art books for watercolor, acrylic, oil, etc that just repeats the skills again and again and again. But then, probably any photoshop manual is more creative than any art books now."