Johnson is not a scientist.
In addition, he fails to propose any empirical test of ID. Nor has anyone else proposed any test for it. The only thing ID people have attempted to do is find evidence against Darwinism. But evidence against Darwinism, even if valid (and the evidence they have presented isn't), is not evidence for ID.
They argue ID as a default position, and that is fundamentally unscientific.
"They argue ID as a default position, and that is fundamentally unscientific."
And Evo argues "chance" as a default position.
No Johnson is not a scientist, but his book is well documented. uses sound logic and reasoning, and pretty much throws a monkey wrench into Darwinsism....so to speak. But, I don't expect any of the evo devo..tees to ever read it. Oh well...
I was an evo devo up till I read his book a few months aga. I was devastated by it. Being a geologist by training I was given the standard line about evo in college and I bought it hook line and sinker. It still may be a valid theory but it is seriously flawed, as Johnson so eloquently points out.
Also, Johnson doesn't argue for ID in the book, it is moslty just a critique on Darwinism, and quite well done.
I don't ask that ID be taught in schools, I ask that Darwinsim be treated like any other theory and be open to criticism. Instead it has become scientific dogma and held as the absolute truth when in fact, it is simply a theory and a weak one at that.