[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.

[shubi]

Logic doesn't work if the premises are faulty. That is the problem with the whole creationist argument. Creation isn't in evolution, so any conclusion they draw, no matter how logical it appears, is fallacious.

[Dimensio]

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.

So how can you discuss the biologists' interpretation of their evidence if you don't acutally understand the underlying science behind their interpretation?

(If you're familiar with assembly language -- especially Motorola 68HC11 E9 ASM, then please ignore this and let me know so that I can find something more suitable)

http://members.iglou.com/darkstar/G9L4-2.txt

Examine that and tell me if you think that I could have coded it in a more efficient fashion.

[longshadow]

"The facts" never speak for themselves;....

"Res ispa loquitur."

I rest my case.

[Elsie]

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

Likewise; how will this MJ jury decide the case if they are not all pedophiles??