> Johnson claims expertise in analysing argumentation, He writes:
> "I am not a scientist but an academic lawyer by profession, with a specialty
> in analyzing the logic of arguments and identifying the assumptions that lie
> behind those arguments." Darwin on Trial, 1993, p.13
> It would seem that a person who claims to be able to analyze argumentation,
> such as Johnson, would realize that all good argumentation is based upon
> good facts first and foremost.
Glenn's analysis, omitted here, is quite to the point - for
those who care. But as a recent thread showed, the fantasy about space
scientists confirming Joshua's long day is still making the rounds at
least 25 yrs after its invention. These things have a life of their own
because people want passionately to believe them - or in this case,
_not_ to believe evolution.