[tacticalogic]

It was to show that possible political agendas must always be considered when evaluating various claims made by 'experts', especially those made in areas which are too complex for most of us to fully understand, such as 'evolutionary biology'. So instead we rely on 'faith' that they are telling us the truth or, rather, the whole truth.

How about the possible political agenda of the biblical research group? Doesn't that need to be considered, too? Particularly in light of them having this suspicious evolutionary biologist in their midst?

[Eye On The Left]

How about the possible political agenda of the biblical research group? Doesn't that need to be considered, too?

That's the 'dot connection' you were asking about, although, in his case (the evolutionary biologist who worked with the group), it doesn't neccessarily mean he is now more inclined to believe in one particular religion or another, but rather that he may now find it more conceivable that SOME sort of creative force or 'intelligence' is behind things. I actually didn't read the article yet, but will now.