Conservapedia is always worth a laugh. Go browse the sections on homosexuality and atheism!
The funny thing is that Schlaf is obviously thinking that the data looks like an 8th grader's science project with a few easy numbers and chart that he can demolish, rather than likely something that you would have to be a graduate student in biology to even begin to understand!
What such exchanges are increasingly producing is a growing mistrust and negative feelings towards evo proponents. Take the Meyer paper saga. Most evos here feel justified by the actions of the Smithsonian. Most non-evos are appalled by their actions.
How about the public?
Well, when you have liberal media such as the Washington Post calling it a witchunt by secular Darwinists, you know the game is up. Maybe not right away, but I suspect within about 9-10 years you will see a backlash in funding and many things towards evos (NeoDarwinists), and frankly, they've brought it on themselves as far as I am concerned.
What does this achieve? Well, not much I suppose. My main motivation in posting it was that I thought it was bloody funny and I figured others might agree. Seriously though, I think that the Conservapedia crew are deeply unpleasant and that one of the best ways to combat such pompous blow-hards is ridicule. Schlafly does a good job of making himself look stupid. That's his look out. All I'm doing is passing on the correspondence.Mutate and Survive
I never expected you to be amused by it randman. It wasn't really aimed at you to be honest.
Suffice to say that given the hectoring, self-important and deeply ignorant tone of Schlafly's original letter and the bandying around of slanderous accusations of fraud on his website, I'm surprised that Lenski managed to be as polite as he was. Schlafly was asking for a dressing down and he got one.
The thing is, I don't see how diplomacy is going to help either side in this debate. I see little room for compromise. Evolution is either real or it is not. Ditto for creationism. This one is going to carry on creating acrimony and I don't see how that can be avoided.
I suspect within about 9-10 years you will see a backlash in funding and many things towards evos
Time will tell. I can't say I'm especially worried.
How anyone can read the emails and see the behaviour of the Smithsonian over this and still defend it is beyond me. Why take some time to look into the real facts for yourself instead of some evo propoganda paper. Keep in mind the Washington Post isn't a conservative, creationist dominated paper. When even they are denouncing mainstream evos at the Smithsonian, you know it had to be bad, very bad, as the email exchanges and attempts to defame and smear the guy showed.