I agree. It's really amazing that he thought he was going to be able to turn back the clock by getting ID widely accepted. Of course he doesn't see his fundamental (no pun intended) flaw. Science is objective. One theory will not unseat another theory by force of will. One theory has to be provable superior, scientifically. And you can't change the rules in your attempt to win.
I could write many paragraphs about what's wrong with Johnson and ID, but I'll try and distill it down to the rest of this one. Johnson, and a number of other ID proponents (DI folks, not just the useful idiots like the board members in Dover) are out to evangelize and think all they need to do is present a "drop on your knees" argument and evolutionary theory will crumble. Johnson is particularly bad since he's a lawyer and thinks all he has to do is get inside the reader/listener to convert them. One of his books is called "Defeating Darwinism: Changing minds by changing hearts" - or something like that.
Anyone who knows anything about science knows that our hearts don't think. He's so caught up in evangelical zeal he just ignores the fact that hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers on evolution have been produced since the publication of
Origin and thinks that if he can just produce a "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" mantra his side will "win."
I don't normally get into apologetics, but it's that sort of stupid **** we see from Kirk Cameron and his band of idiots. "What if I were to tell you I could show you Buddah's grave but you couldn't show me Jesus'"? Ummm, what if I were to explain to you that in Buddhist theology Gautama would have to die in order to transcend to the next level dumb***? If your "killer ap" is based on ****y theology, how can I expect you to know a flagellum from an illium when it comes to biology and the complexities of evolutionary theory?
Which brings us back to Johnson and a point Tricky made in his evaluation of the show - why the hell did, of all the smack talking blowhards at DI - Johnson be the only one to agree to an interview? It was one of the great ironies on the show, while the C/IDers whined about "if evolution were so strong, why can't it handle some competition in the classroom" only Johnson and
another lawyer who didn't know what the hell they were talking about had the balls to appear on camera. They're simply cowards when it comes to appearing in an environment where there isn't presentation of position A and position B - there is give and take and actual bebate. It's a typical MO of most C/IDers who aren't instransigents or mentally unstable....
Just to be fair, some rebuttal from the 'other side':
{snip links}
And speaking of which... I'm shocked that DI had rebuttals. It wouldn't surprise me if those were pre-writted and posted as soon as the show aired in the Eastern and Central time zones. Let me guess the transcript "Wah Wah, Behe was misquoted". "Wah Wah, the Of Pandas and People typos were misrepresented" "Wah Wah, Tiktaalik is a fraud." "Wah Wah why wouldn't Nova let us demand editorial supremacy over what was aired on the show."
I wish these cowardly crybabies would step up to the plate and be more willing to get their asses kicked in public like they do when there is honest debate rather than stacking the audience with Creationists who root for people who deny Christ while ostensibly doing his work...
If any of your are interested in how the doc is playing out on two forums I read/post to, here's links to threads.
http://forums.christianity.com/Judgement_Day:_Intelligent_Design_on_Trial/m_2853798/mpage_1/tm.htm#1
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=104187
