Replies

Roger Downey writes "...the fingerprints of Seattle's neoconservative Discovery Institute (DI) are all over the film." This is a surprise? From the SPU article: "The event, which was sponsored by the Political Union Club, the SPU political science department and the Discovery Institute..." And "fingerprints"? Downey charges the work is a "...covert ideological infomercial." "Covert"? Well, hardly. "Ideological"? Certainly not established. "Infomercial"? Not according to the attendees. We conclude that Downey cannot be accused of being an unbiased reporter.

The critcism of the event revolves around attacks on the players with nary a contravention of the evidence presented against Evolution save "Since anyone who's actually mastered the material on evolution in a second-year college biology text can refute all this scientific guff without opening the book ...", which is neither authoritative nor truthful. Roger says it's "guff" and we are simply supposed to believe it. Reminds me of all the book reviewers the Evols are wont to trot out recently as authoritaties on Darwin's Musings. And Eugenie Scott a "scientist"? Well, perhaps she has a degree or two but her "work" is about slipery semantics and I encourage all to read it. Do so but also read Icons of Evolution. Then decide.

Thanks for the levity, jennyp.

"...slip[p]ery semantics..."

You've supplied a little levity yourself, Phaed!

Back in #23, jennyp linked Icons of Obfuscation, which makes a nice reply to your #50. (OK, I'm always stubbing my toe on failing to read the thread before I jump in.)