>I wrote:
>I trust that most readers on this list realize at least intuitively just
>how *stupid* and irrational this line of "reasoning" is. If *this* is what
>Johnson thinks is an "ultimate self-refutation of Darwinism," then my
>remarks about Johnson's intellect in earlier posts stands confirmed once
>again. Johnson is an intellectual -- and *moral!* -- *pipsqueak*, making
>his career almost entirely on the basis of lies, half-truths, sophistries,
>and sucking up in a whole-hearted way to the ignorant, the unwary, and the
>stupid.
My wife has taken me to task for the above paragraph, though I'm not sure
exactly why. I suppose it's because of the last sentence in that paragraph.
To those who think it extreme, I will point out that I've been reading
Johnson's books for years (though I have missed a few), and have been
sporadically following his claims in the media and on this list (as quoted
usually by Jones or in an article brought to my attention by Jones), so,
after all of this, I consider myself quite qualified to make such remarks.
However, this does not mean that I believe that everyone who holds any of
Johnson's views is necessarily either a moral or an intellectual pipsqueak.
The remark above was specific to Johnson. Johnson does not have the excuses
(sometimes fairly good ones) that others might have, because he has been
claiming himself (by implication) to be an expert on evolution and on
what's wrong with it, and on certain philosophical topics on which he has
made repeated dogmatic and rationally nonsensical claims.
I think the strongest negative claim about my remark that might be
justified is that I could have been more tactful, so that it would not
appear that I was criticizing the moral or intellectual status of
non-Johnson ID-supporters.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 29 2000 - 00:49:36 EDT