[tacticalogic]

We have named many highly accomplished scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg, Daniel Dennett, William B. Provine, Steven Pinker, Stephen J. Gould, Peter Sanger, Michael Tooley, Richard Lewontin, Carl Sagan (now deceased), Marc Hauser, and Victor Stenger

You've named 12, past and present.

And you characterize this as "many" of how scientists have there ever been, past and present?

Yes, I'm trying to quantify it, because that's how you find it that "many" is really significant, or is just a miniscule fraction of what's actually being considered.

And I'll submit that any proposition needs to be subjected to that kind of scrutiny. There's nothing wrong with asking that question, and it needs to be done more often.

[marron]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

This is not an argument, its just contradiction.

:)

No matter how many you cite, its not “many”.

[YHAOS]

You've named 12, past and present.

As our FRiend, marron, observes, any number I cite, will not be “many.” If I provided twenty, you would demand thirty more; and if I complied, you would demand fifty more; ad infinitum.

And through the fog of your numbers game, you continue to attempt to evade the issue by changing the subject. The issue is the abuse of Science by Liberals to malign Conservatives, Libertarians, and others such as myself, in an attempt to shut us up. Isn’t going to happen my FRiend, despite your best efforts.

Thanks FRiend marron, for your timely insight.