To whom it may concern:
I held a mirror up to the rhetorical style of Phillip E. Johnson. I agree
the reflection was "oafish."
I have no quarrel with Mr. Johnson's "entitlement" to his opinions. But a
prosecutor preaching a sermon in an academic setting should expect
rebuttal.
In fact the questions I asked Mr. Johnson were quite elementary.* His
inability to answer them in spontaneous Q and A showed only that his
opinions have little to do with reason in the biological sciences.
*Because "Darwin on Trial" (p. 92, ff.) relies on the structural similarity
of cytochrome c in various species of plants and animals, I asked Mr.
Johnson the most elementary questions concerning the structure and function
of cytochrome c.
Surprised by his complete inability to answer, I probed a little further.
As of September 18, 1995, Mr. Johnson's only response to questions
concerning the rationale for the use of animal models in the human genome
project or for some sketch of the mechanisms by which some animal viruses
subvert the human immune system was an indignant appeal to the sentiments
of the largely non-academic audience organized by "the very dedicated
Pieder Beeli."
If "it (my questions) didn't work," that was because not everyone in the
auditorium thought the author of "Darwin on Trial" deserved a trial of his
own.
A. Edward Manier, Professor
Philosophy & History and Philosophy of Science
Reilly Center for Science, Technology and Values
314 Decio
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, IN 46556
(o) 219-631-6520
FAX 219-631-8209
Dept 219-631-6471