Sunday, July 10, 2011

Hey tom


Thomas Cudworth


5:21 pm

To all Commenters:

I would greatly appreciate it if people would respond to the issues raised in my column, and not get off into side arguments about the literary history of the Pandas book or into arguments about the mechanics of evolution.

The theme of my column is qualifications. The question is: are most of the Darwinian preachers in the culture-wars competent to discuss the latest developments in evolutionary biology? If they are not competent, shouldn’t the public know this?

What I’m trying to do here is to give everyone a chance to say whether these people are or are not qualified. And I invite any of the named people — Falk, Venema, Moran, Miller, etc. — to write in here, listing their publications and conference papers in the field of evolutionary biology, and explaining why we should prefer their account of evolution to those of Darwin-critical specialists in evolutionary theory such as Lynn Margulis, Stuart Newman, Richard Sternberg, etc.


And I'm sure that many people would appreciate it if you would shut your sanctimonious pie-hole.

Why aren't you questioning or bashing the "qualifications" (LOL) of all the ID/creation pushers?

By the way, will you list all the ID/creation 'scientists' who were at the conference, or any science conference, and were presenting their published papers? After all, if ID/creation is 'science', shouldn't all the ID/creation 'scientists' be attending science conferences and presenting their papers and experimental findings?