[Right Wing Professor]

You defend that it is THE ipso facto scientific explanation. And you do it with a RELIGIOUS FERVOR, for it doesn't warrant it. It is, after all, just a theory.

He's defending science, perhaps the crowning human achievement, against attack from pre-Enlightenment religious fundamentalism. That's an absolutely essential fight. I, for one, am grateful he's willing to put in the time necessary for this defense.

The problem is that there is just too much to refute in your post.

The problem isn't the quantity, but the quality.

[Aric2000]

I was in the middle of writing this huge post to explain what you just said in that nice short one, but then decided to forget it, glad I did.

[Not Insane]

--He's defending science, perhaps the crowning human achievement, against attack from pre-Enlightenment religious fundamentalism. That's an absolutely essential fight. I, for one, am grateful he's willing to put in the time necessary for this defense.--

And I applaud that. It is when the theory itself is defended with the same fervor that I get a little concerned.

--The problem isn't the quantity, but the quality.--

There's plenty on both sides, for those with open minds to observe.

[balrog666]

He's defending science, perhaps the crowning human achievement, against attack from pre-Enlightenment religious fundamentalism. That's an absolutely essential fight. I, for one, am grateful he's willing to put in the time necessary for this defense.

Well said.