I hate answering because it will appear to you that I am defending
Johnson's getting a paleontological fact wrong and I assume in this case
that you are right Glenn. But I really don't like the argument you are
suing. Is it really fair to dismiss Johnson on the basis of an error
that he does not acknowledge to you, or to use that to categorize him in
a camp with some admittedly sloppy YEC folks (not all are sloppy).
Glenn, I could dismiss you because you had a bad error in Pennsylvanian
paleobotany (my area of expertise), but I do not because you are usually
very careful to try and be accurate and, in fact are very well read in
some areas. But by a similar token, when I first read Johnson's Darwin
on trial, I was impressed that he had done his homework and was well
acquantained with good secondary sources. If he had not been he would
easily have been completely dismissed by the academic scientific
community because he had not done his homework.
All this is not to say that the thrust of his argument may not have some
strong weaknesses. In fact I think ID is too empirical and does not
give enough credit to the power of the paradigms we start with. But
unless the errors are systematic enough to indicate he basically was
sloppy, lets focus on what is wrong or right about the thrust of his
argument if we are going to argue.
I once posted a long time ago that the non scientists that works within
the framework of existing science probably know no more about science
than the lay person that wants to account for geology by the flood. The
YEC is classified as ignorant but it does not mean that he is any more
ignorance, it just shows up a lot more because he follows folks who have
a different paradigm. Which of course is not to say that the paradigm
he is following may not work on rocks out there in the field.
-- James Mahaffy (firstname.lastname@example.org) Phone: 712 722-6279 Biology Department FAX : 712 722-1198 Dordt College, Sioux Center IA 51250