I wouldn't put it quite that bluntly, but I have to concur
Phillip Johnson dropped into the talk.origins newsgroup about ten years ago, and I and several other folks had conversations/debates with him for a bit over a week, before he finally ran off.
I was *not* at all impressed at his level of knowledge, nor his critical thinking skills, nor his ability to put together a logical argument (nor rebut one).
Most of his screeds against evolution are classic examples of the "straw man" fallacy, where you attack a distorted, inferior version of your opponent's position, then sit back and pat yourself on the back for ripping apart such an easy scarecrow.
As is usually the case with straw man errors, it was done honestly -- Johnson does not realize that he has a poor, misshapen understand of what evolution actually claims (and does not claim), nor does he realize that his scientific and mathematical abilities are little beyond the high school level.
As a result, his murky understanding of evolution (and science in general) leads him to honestly believe that the simplistic, silly model of evolution he has in his head means that evolution itself is simplistic and silly. Instead, it just means he doesn't have a real grasp on the subject -- rather like a radical liberal denouncing Republicans because they want to deny lunches to schoolkids...
Johnson is clearly a skilled lawyer, however, which means that he has the ability to make arguments that *sound* convincing, even if they are not truly sound. (Note that courtroom arguments are not about finding the truth, they are about convincing a jury.)
As a result, his murky understanding of evolution (and science in general) leads him to honestly believe that the simplistic, silly model of evolution he has in his head means that evolution itself is simplistic and silly. Instead, it just means he doesn't have a real grasp on the subject -- rather like a radical liberal denouncing Republicans because they want to deny lunches to schoolkids...
Hmmmm.
I 'choose' to believe that 'I am fearfully and wonderfully made'. Should my belief 'theory' be any more or less funded than the belief theory of the evolutionists?