It’s like they don’t believe in God and hate him at the same time.

The fact is: it takes *more* faith to believe in an unobserved transition of species that has _no_ supportive fact than it does to believe Jesus existed. So, I applaud the Darwinist who has so much faith in evolutionary theory so as to maintain his position so vehemently. I have yet to get a satisfactory answer as to irreducible complexity wherein even Dumbski & Ruse’s book “Debating Design” fails to comprehensively answer the questions of this issue. There’s a great deal of double-talk and circular reasoning, but nothing concrete so as to explain away the design theory pointed to by anti-evolutionary critics citing irreducible complexity. To Kevin’s point, though, I am no biologist, so I defer to those of higher professions than mine.

I appreciate your comments on my blog. To be quite honest, I’m never sure if my posts are ever read.

I sincerely hope you read the entire article since I do in fact cite one Darwinist whose attention was attracted by the content of Johnson’s book. So, to your point that the book was either ignored or laughed at is not accurate; at least two major conferences were held to which Johnson and several Darwinian scientists were invited to debate the subject of this book. Michael Ruse neither laughed at or ignored the book.

Secondly, might I ask your profession? I don’t want to assume too much but I’m guessing you are neither in the fields of evolutionary science, biology, or medicine – fields that might require so much of your time that you’d hardly find it rewarding to dredge such unimportant blogs as my own. If such is the case, are you yourself qualified to make the claims you’ve made above? If, as you assert, since Johnson is merely a lawyer and “is not qualified to say anything about evolutionary biology”, neither you nor I are qualified for that matter.

However, if I am mistaken and you are indeed within a field you claim would give credence to your assertions, then it still begs the question as to whether Johnson, or anyone who is not a scientist for that matter, can say anything contrary to the claims of science. And that’s the real sticking point, isn’t it? Do we not as human beings engage ideas outside the realm of our supposed lines of expertise and do so with a degree of intellect that is acceptable for engaging those ideas? If you’re honest, you’ll admit this point.

I would also like to urge you to understand that Johnson’s book was not intended as a refutation of evolution, but a direct analysis of the basic argumentation used to support the theory. As a lawyer, this is his field of expertise and his claims are supported by philosophers of science who sit on both sides of the debate who recognize that Darwinists presuppose too much in their observations.

I welcome your comments, but I would like to encourage you to be intellectually honest in your comments.

What? Scientists either laughed at Johnson’s nonsense or they ignored it as they would ignore any other stupidity.

Johnson is a lawyer, not a biologist. He is not qualified to say anything about evolutionary biology.

Grow up mister. Evolution is a basic scientific fact, and your professional liars for Jeebus will never change this reality.