<< I don't have a problem with considering Wexler an outsider
who made a contribution. I don't even particularly want to
argue over how much of a breakthrough it was. What I would
be interested in is if Mike can develop parallels with the
specific case at issue, that of Phillip E. Johnson and his
contributions to biology.>>
It was never my intent to make a point like this. I was simply
replying to the generic claim that only "insiders" make contributions
to science. My motivation had nothing to do with justifying Johnson
by speaking of Wexler. I was motivated to speak simply from my
experience as an work-study student, where I worked for a scientist
who began as an outsider and he spoke to me about the advantages
of this perspective. Not to mention that Wexler inspires me by
reminding me just how human science is.
But now that you bring up the question, I suppose one could develop
a rough parallel. As Kevin points out, sooner or later, someone
would have probably found the HD gene. But it was found when it
was found largely because of Wexler's passion and sense of urgency.
When this passion was coupled with the skills, a discovery was made.
In a similar fashion, Johnson's passion for his ID views might
catalyze a discovery if he hooks up with someone with the necessary
technical skills. Put simply, Johnson might inspire some young ID
scientist who might make a discovery as the result is being so
inspired. His contribution would be indirect, but no less real.
Of course, this parallel all hinges on an actual discovery being made.
Mike