Has the bias made this forum essentially irrelevant?

This is a perennial question, but since it has been being asked almost since I joined here 8 years ago I think the answer kind of speaks for itself. What happens is that debaters on both sides come and go. There is probably a higher attrition rate on those on the creationist/IDist side but I'd ascribe that more to the pressure of being subjected to consistent dogpiling than necessarily to any moderating bias.So we get a few drive-by posters who ask one question and then never return, we get a few who stay for a few thread, maybe because they have a few quite specific issues they want addressed and we get some who stick it out for the duration. The number of creationists/IDers who get permanently suspended is much smaller than the numbers that just don't seem to feel invested enough to persist here.You might see the proportions of frequently posting evolutionist/creationist members itself to produce a form of inherent bias but it isn't really one that can be addressed short of going to creationist forums and begging creationists to come here and be dogpiled on. Increasing the numbers of creationists might not sognificantly affect this as most of the creationist/idists here seem to have their own very distinct ideas both about what specifically proves evolution to be wrong and what is a suitable replacement.to a large extent I think the problem is that the evolutionarily inclined members tend to be fairly reactive in the science forums. By this I mean that the usual situation is that a creationist/IDist starts a thread positing some problem or raising some objection to evolution, this is usually followed by anything between 3 and 15 evolutionarily inclined members responding directly to the OP.To me it seems less common for those on the evolutionary side to start threads in the Biological Evolution and Intelligent Design forums, and those that do seem to be much shorter threads generally.TTFN,WK