Re: re-whales from rodents

Howard J. Van Till (
Mon, 23 Aug 1999 09:57:15 -0400

Arthur Chadwich took an interesting strategic path in his defense of
Phillip Johnson's references to specific scientific concepts and their
significance to the ongoing discussion regarding the character of the
Creation's formational history. In the context of questions about whether
or not Johnson got the facts straight, Art asks us to withhold from
expecting too much:

>Johnson is a lawyer! Does he know the difference between a whale and a
>rodent? Do you really expect him to? I think the emphasis ought (and
>properly so) to be on the point he is attempting to make, and not on the
>specific details of the paleontology."

But Johnson, the law professor, is repeatedly claiming to know enough about
biology, paleontology, etc., to warrant his declaration that the
professional scientific community has gotten its theorizing about the
formational history of the universe entirely wrong! Shouldn't such a bold
claim be based on a foundation of thorough familiarity with the
professional judgment that he declares null and void?

Howard Van Till