>The main point of Phil Johnson's work is to refute the claim that
>athiests, posing as objective scientists, have proven that evolution is
>a scientific fact and not a philsophy. It is thus puzzeling that so
>much if any at all fuss is made over a small detail of his knowledge of
>the claims of evolutionary biologists. After all, you are reading this
>and are thinking in terms of its reasonableness or the counter, and
>according the the rules of email etoquete, are ignoring the numerous
>spellloing errorrrrs. Bert Massie
Hi Bert,
I would contend that with the factual errors in Johnson's book the
analogy is more like an atheist who writes a book refuting Christianity
by stating that there was no Roman empire and thus Christianity can't be
true. You would think the atheist was an ignoramus and he would be. To
claim that rodents gave rise to whales and bats is displaying an equal
lack of education.
It is not at all unreasonable to demand excellence. Don't you want
excellence in Christian apologetics? Or are you content with allowing
these types of inaccuracies? To allow sloppiness for members of one's
own 'team' means that the team will sink to lower levels of inaccuracy
rapidly. And it is not at all like spelling errors.
-- glennFoundation, Fall and Flood Adam, Apes and Anthropology http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm