Replies

I notice an correlation between your ranting and the criticism of evolution and ignorance of its basic principles.

We should keep two issues distinct: (a) the criticism of evolution and (b) the qaulity of communication between disparate levels of ability of understanding.

If evolution does not concern itself with this feature, something else does. Or is it that you wish to deny the existence of complexity?

My general goal has been to stick to learning and education rather than turning another's loss into a side-show sport. I think it helps build a character of patience, which is greatly needed in an ambitious and adolescent world.

I did take note of your use of the emotionally laden word "ranting" in what purported to be a dispassionate post.

If people who know nothing about a subject persist in blithering on, there is no need for the more knowledgeable to persist in patient explanations.

Translation: I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

My point is simple. If you intend to be a critic of science you must understand it and not argue against straw men.

If you debate, you must understand your opponent's position and be able to state it correctly.

I have noticed that most of the evolution critics on these threads are unaware of what biologists have to say about evolution. This could be remedied by a bit of reading. Ernst Mayr's This is Biology would be a good start.

Oddly enough, most of the ID supporters on these threads have no idea what the ideological founders of ID have to say. Posters on these threads are generally unaware that Behe, Denton and, to some extent, Dembsky, accept the historical fact of evolution even while being skeptical of natural selection as the only shaping force.

Nothing on these threads is so technical that it is inaccessible to someone interested in learning. Having strong opinions on a technical subject without basic knowledge is inexcusable.