1) That Phillip Johnson advances arguments, which on their face appear to
   be non-sensical, is a logical avenue for further discussion.

2) That Phillip Johnson refuses to either clarify or support certain of
   his positions is a logical avenue for further discussion.

3) That Phillip Johnson chooses to put forward fallacious arguments (such
   as word counting) to support certain of his positions is a logical
   avenue for further discussion.

4) That Phillip Johnson chooses to rely on rhetorical sleight-of-hand
   in place of reasoned debate is a logical avenue for further discussion.

5) That Phillip Johnson may lack the background to speak knowledgably on
   a topic that he speaks frequently upon is a logical avenue for further
   discussion.

6) That Phillip Johnson's firmest "criticisms" of evolution presented to
   date are in actuality "criticisms" of the whole of science is a logical
   avenue for further discussion.

7) That Phillip Johnson has yet to demonstrate that he is cognizant of the
   scope of his arguments noted in #6 is a logical avenue for further
   discussion.

8) That statements 1-7 also appear to hold true for Johnson's book _Darwin
   on Trial_ are logical avenues for further discussion.

   Have I missed anything?

--
Matt Brinkman
brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov