*Of the ‘methodological’ stripe…

Remind me… what logical bearing does whatever Liz Craig does or says have upon Phillip Johnson’s lack of consistency in what he says?

I’m reminded of the classic advice for budding lawyers… “When the facts are against you, pound on the law. When the law is against you, pound on the facts. When both are against you, pound on the table.”

Tu quoque is a table-pounding tactic, nothing more.

She should pay more attention to her own site at Kansas Citizens for Science which is currently dominated by a discussion of “Atheist Morality”…this of course has nothing to do with science but…whatever.

I think that we can count on this being exloited for the foreseeable future, until such time as the media realizes that ID advocates are no more credible than various other sorts of denialists who don’t get a presumption of credibility any more.

I agree, and suspect that some sort of preemptive education is needed. If the science and religion desks of all major papers got supplied with a list of each of the more prominant ID advocates more juicy contradictory/crackpot quotes, it might prepare them to be a bit less naive in their acceptance of their positions.

“Eventually the Darwinists were able to employ their media monopoly and political power to intimidate the people of Kansas and defeat some of the courageous state school board members for re-election, whereupon the new board bowed to their will.”

Thanks for the compilation of Wedge Updates by PEJ, which shows that he has lied, misrepresented, and still possibly does not understand that ID is not science. Tsk tsk.

Johnson, like Calvert, had a traumatic experience (which I in no way wish to minimize or make fun of) which drove him to evangelical Christianity. How this tends to turn previously rational people to irrationality, I still don’t understand.

Intelligence has nothing to do with it. It’s something else. I don’t know what.

[...] it’s somewhat disheartening that Phillip
Johnson isn’t automatically assumed to be lying by any competent
interviewer.

There’s a point here. Those who don’t know the history of the ID advocates in general are likely to falsely extend the benefit of doubt. I think that we can count on this being exloited for the foreseeable future, until such time as the media realizes that ID advocates are no more credible than various other sorts of denialists who don’t get a presumption of credibility any more.

Phillip E. Johnson says, “his intent never was to use public school education as the forum for his ideas [Intelligent Design creationism].” Wesley Elsberry has a flock of quotes direct from Johnson that refute that. If it were someone other…