Sigh. Alamo-Girl, I don't know what it is with some of our correspondents, but somethimes I get the distinct impression that rather than engage the issues brought to the table, some resort to challenging the qualifications and/or motives of the person making an argument they evidently choose to avoid.
The "classical evo reply" that I get all too often is: "You're wrong. You're stupid. And you have a nefarious hidden agenda. So I don't have to waste my time talking to you." And then you get usually extensive chapter-and-verse recapitulations of the blessed texts, and a zillion links to outside sites. As if that sort of thing constitutes any kind of a decent, fair-minded, civil debate, or rational exchange of views.
All questions are ignored, one never learns what a person's actual, active thinking about the issue under dispute is, what grounds his view of the matter is based on, why the avoided question was improper on evidentiary or logical grounds, and so forth. In short, one gets pure polemics and zero rational discussion.
FWIW, if this is the way to defend Darwinist evolutionary theory, then I'd guess the theory must be in really big trouble. This "circling of the wagons" mentality is not helpful to a rational defense of this theory or any other theory.
Outside site. It's usually just Talk.Origins or an offshot such as Panda's Thumb.
It's not about 'circling the wagons', it's about making sure that accurate information is disseminated. Unless you are able to produce the research yourself, your only outlet is to rely on those that can and have done the research. It is difficult for a layman to understand fully, let alone critique, another's work unless that layman has equivalent study and/or experience in the relevant field.
The reason most in academia dislike uninformed debate in venues such as this one is the lack of verification of information. Anything can be said and taken for fact, even if it contradicts what has taken years of verified and replicated research by multiple researchers.
It may be more fun and interesting to be a rationalist than an empiricist, but inductive ponderings will only go so far before deductive arguments need to be considered.
The Chinese professor angst on the other thread is a case in point - rather than address the substance of the quote, the entire discussion was derailed to the refusal to attribute the quote and accusations of dishonesty, global condemnations of all associates, etc.
Here's the rub - even if the quote were a clever rephrasing of the sentiment - the substance of the quote remains, which is the entire point of the excerpt of Dr. Cheing's interview at post 145.