That whole post is an argument from authority. Also, are you so sure Phillip Johnston is a theistic evolutionist? Secondly, even arguing from authority were acceptable, why would you consider an attorney to be an authority?
Now to go down the list and eliminate authorities that support evolution, just not Darwin's version...
Mivart:
A theistic Lamarckian evolutionist.
http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~alroy/lefa/Mivart.html
"Mivart, however, himself professed a theory of evolution; but he unhesitatingly and consistently asserted the irreconcilable difference between the inanimate and animate, as well as between the the purely animal and the rational. By maintaining the creationist theory of the origin of the human soul he attempted to reconcile his evolutionism with the Catholic faith."
Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10407b.htm
Kauffman, Stuart:
Was studying methods of testing evolution of molecules in 1995. Abstract:
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/publications/Abstracts/95-04-042abs.html
Lectures on his own theory of abiogenesis:
Lecture:
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/Lecture-2.html
Wrote a book regarding the evolution of proteins as an example of information increases in complex systems:
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/originstofc.html
P.T. Saunders:
Wrote:
"Evolution without Natural Selection: Further Implications of the Daisyworld Parable."
J. Theor. Biol. 166 (1994) 365-373.
http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/staff/pt_saunders.html
He's opposed to neo-darwinism, not evolution. Looks like a fan of James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis.
He and MT Ho edited a book on Neo-Darwinism back in '86, the subtitle of the book was "An Introduction To The New Evolution"
Remember that being opposed to Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism is not necessarily equivalent to being opposed to evolution.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-27-2002]