[Dimensio]

Phil Johnson is a law professor at Berkeley. What, one might ask, are the credentials of someone like that to judge a subject of science? Well, when it comes to examining the evidence, assumptions, and logic of the case being argued, quite a lot.

How exactly is he qualified to examine biological evidence when he is not a biologist?

[Rippin]

How exactly is he qualified to examine biological evidence when he is not a biologist?

-----------------------------------------------------

How exactly can scientists be qualified to evaluate logical arguments if they are not lawyers or logicians?

[grey_whiskers]

How exactly is he qualified to examine biological evidence when he is not a biologist?

Well, lack of credentials has never stopped lawyers from pissing all over everything else...

Full Disclosure: I represent the firm of Dewey, Cheatham, & Howe !! :-)

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

Phil Johnson is a law professor at Berkeley. What, one might ask, are the credentials of someone like that to judge a subject of science? Well, when it comes to examining the evidence, assumptions, and logic of the case being argued, quite a lot.

How exactly is he qualified to examine biological evidence when he is not a biologist?

---

It is a conceit of the fragmented modern mind that "only subject matter experts" are qualified to discuss any particular subject matter. In fact, any of us who are familar with logic as it applies to evaluating the internal consistency of truth claims are qualified to discuss the biologists' interpretation of their evidence.

"The facts" never speak for themselves; the necessary interpretive framework chosen to give them voice is always subject to logical analysis. Get used to it.