Replies

"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.

And Evo argues "chance" as a default position.

No, no it doesn't. If you'd actually studied evolution -- the real science, not the strawman characterization presented by creationist shills -- you would understand this.

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 if he doesn't understand the underlying science -- and there's every indication that he doesn't -- then his arguments are based upon faulty premises and, as such, have no validity.

But, I don't expect any of the evo devo..tees to ever read it. Oh well...

Many of us have read it. That's how we know that it's a load of garbage. But, of course, creationists ignore facts not convenient for them.

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.

It is, in the same way that we hold gravity theory, atomic theory and electromagnetic theory to "criticism". Unfortunately, many of the "criticism" layed against it is founded upon faulty premises and a poor grasp of science.