In a message dated 10/11/00 02:07:16 GMT Standard Time, sejones@iinet.net.au
writes:
RW>Following your line of argument, would you agree that a reality check is in
>order for Phillip Johnson, a lawyer, who accuses Darwinian evolution of
>being pseudoscience, although it has the support of people with far more
>scientific credentials than he has?
Steve Jones:
One must admire Richard's "attack is the best defence" strategy! On his
own criteria, he, with a BSc in Statistics, can argue for "Darwinian
evolution" but Johnson being a Doctor of Jurisprudence (and a senior
Professor of Law) cannot. And that with Johnson reading almost all the
modern "Darwinian evolution" literature over the last 15 years and Richard
hardly having read any of it! >>
Paul Robson:
Not as much as one admires your ability to blatantly ignore Richard's
point.
The reality is that you aren't looking at people's credentials
to determine your "experts". You are picking people who already
agree with your position, and making up reasons to support them
(or disagree with their opponents) on the fly.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 10 2000 - 05:46:59 EST