RE: Johnson on Bible Answer Man

From: Alexanian, Moorad (
Date: Sat Mar 15 2003 - 10:35:46 EST

  • Next message: George Murphy: "Re: Fools rush in - was Re: Reviews of Darwin's Cathedral"

    Every scientist who has ever published a paper that is critical to
    other's work or is presenting a new idea knows full well that the
    writing of the paper is done as if one were presenting a brief before
    the US Superior Court. My daughter, who is not a physician, is a
    practicing lawyer but knows enough about medicine to properly depose
    physicians. I think this criticism of PJ is unwarranted. PJ has clearly
    brought to the fore the philosophical assumptions involved in
    evolutionary theory that go beyond science. I believe that is proper
    philosophy of science, if you like. Moorad

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Jim Armstrong []
            Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 9:51 AM
            Subject: Re: Johnson on Bible Answer Man
            Of course PJ is a Professor or Law, not a scientist. His
    arguments flow from a specific agenda and seem more those of the
    courtroom, using facts in selective ways in order to create doubt. I
    think that is evident in what he calls his "Wedge strategy". He
    describes his agenda pretty well at
            I presume this is discussed as well in his recent book "Wedge of

                    Jim Armstrong wrote:

                            From PJ's own web site it looks like the latest
    on the subject is 1995

                    Even more disturbing is that PJ seems to know Kenneth
                    fairly well as he debated him in 1996. Why he would
                    call him something just short of a seditionist is beyond
                    [PJs comments on Ken were the original reason for this
                    by Grace along indeed, we proceed,

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 10:35:59 EST