[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?

[jwalsh07]

LOL, keep on Rippin.

[Dimensio]

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

Why would we expect them to require legal training, when they're not dealing with matters of civil or criminal law? This is a red herring in an attempt to prop up the failed claim of credibility for Philip Johnson.

As for logic; any biologist who does not have even some formal understanding of logic is probably not going to go far.

[lepton]

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

Ever read court rulings, and listened to arguments? Lawyers are not trained to figure out what words mean. They are trained to support or destroy conclusions. Some judges are so good at this that they approach illiteracy.

Trial lawyers, especially, are trained to SOUND logical...not BE logical.

For example, the authority for laws is based upon the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn't give the authority, then the lawmakers have no authority to make the given law. Lawyers rarely are particularly acquainted with the Constitution - it's barely even taught. Now, i don't mean that they simply have a different interpretation - they are generally only marginally acquainted with most of it.