<<In a courtroom, an attorney would not succeed without the evidence. The
court wouldn't buy into hearsay, conjecture, inference, or reasoning.
"Corpus delicti" cries the jury... "bring on the evidence necessary for
the truth".
Elsewhere, well, the rules are different and truth, being so elusive,
seems to take on a different meaning.>>
Yep. This is what Johnson homed in on so well in DOT. He recognized that
Darwinists were making arguments that played fast and loose with the evidence,
and with issue formulation. All lawyers know that he who gets to define the
issues wins the game. Johnson unpackaged the gobbletygook and exposed the
ruse. (What a clever play on words, considering Michael Ruse has embraced a
central tenet of the Johnsonian thesis!)
Jim