[jennyp]

I then got to know the people from the main-stream community and the creationist world who are critical of Darwinism. What I brought to the dissident movement—Nancy Pearcey has pointed this out—was a sense of strategy.

People were caught in a rationalist mentality. They were thinking, "If we present facts and evidence, Stephen J. Gould will say, ‘Oh yes, you’re right and I’m wrong,’" and then the scientists would let them in. Well, I understand a little bit better how that world works, and I thought of it like a political campaign or big case litigation.

Of course this says it all, right here.

[jennyp]

I do respect Johnson's intellect. However it's abundantly clear that his expertise - and his temperament - is in data-lawyering and spin-doctoring.

[cornelis]

Dear jennyp, Touchstone produced an informative interview, and telling. It revealed that Johnson had a plan of action which he styled as political and like a debate in court of law. This admission of his ambition as strategist is hardly strange. Good debate teams have strategies. Not a single decisive law in our land is conducted without such strategy. We can even think back of the role of the law court for Cicero and how he dealt with the crucial issues of the day. But going back that far is really not necessary. All we need to remember, in the first instance, is that his style would only be discreditable in certain instances, not all.