Replies

In this case the complaint did not come from a complying poster so the second test did not apply. But the first principle did apply and it is ultimately a personal decision - would I want to be treated this way if the situation were reversed?

Many on the evolutionist camp do not have a strong sense of religion--and as such they might not be able to understand why religious beliefs are so deeply cherished. That is one source of the frustration, perhaps. One side does not have as many "hot buttons", so to speak, and thinks the other side should just "chill out". Of course, the other side has the hot buttons trampled on and feels attacked. It's as if your house was made of brick and your neighbor's out of glass.

In this case, a complying poster of the Creation/Intelligent Design camp would logically believe that the designer is intelligent; many of them would say the designer is God; many of them, our Judeo/Christian God. Using a word like "drunk" to describe the designer would reasonable be taken as belittling to complying posters.

I do not agree that it constitutes an attack on a poster's religious beliefs. But, the person critiquing the designer should be aware that the subject is a "touchy" one and take especial care to use tactful language. Using inflammatory words have never been persuasive.

The rest of the post--thank you so much for your clarifications, A-G!

Thank you so very much for your thoughtful and well-reasoned post! Kudos and hugs!

I realize that we have a difference of opinion on the subject phrase, but that only illustrates that people of good conscience can disagree. In which case, we respectfully acknowledge that difference and continue talking!