[general_re]

A courtroom is not the proper forum for this sort of decision making, unfortunately. The legal system permits itself all sorts or fallacies and leaps of logic that do not stand up in the arena of science. However, insofar as this debate is conducted in the court of public opinion, there's nothing to fear from Johnson - if playing lawyer games works for him, then I would suggest that pointing out that he's playing lawyer games will also tend work against him. His criticism is either valid, or it is not, and insofar as much of it is legalistic sophistry, a competent advocate of evolution ought to be able to counter it well. There's no need to silence him at all - pointing out what he is does well enough.

[Ahban]

That's a pretty fancy way of saying that you are going to dodge, rather than refute, his central arguments and resort to attacks on the messengers credentials and methods rather than the supposed logical fallacies of his arguments.

Its a little late for that haughty game.