<<My complaint is against people who think that if you quote an evolutionist
to criticize a certain point in evolutionary theory that you've knocked out
that point. It's sort of a back-door appeal to the experts. This is what
Stephen Jones seems to do alot and is at the heart of the "quote book"
mentality. I do believe that Phil Johnson falls into this at times
(especially in his Dawkins vs. Gould quotes in RITB which is a microcosm of
his punct eq vs. neo-Darwinism discussion in DOT). When you've got two
experts disagreeing, it takes more than throwing "quote" bombs back and
forth in a debate.>>
I think this is unfair to Phil and RITB. Far from throwing "quote bombs," his
analysis of the Gould/Dawkins arguments is detailed and analytical. I
encourage everyone to read the section [Chapter 4] and see whether bombs or
reasoned analysis are the main component. One need not agree with the analysis
itself, but it should be properly characterized.
Jim