General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel

Even more controversially, why not have more scientific topics directly relevant to evolution? Those are even easier to provide evidence for given the increasing availability of research papers online.I suppose the problem is that people will only talk about what interests them. If all the frequent posters want to do is discuss politics then no amount of administrational intervention will stop them, up until the point that it is so restrictive that they go elsewhere.TTFN,WK

What did Archie do wrong?TTFN,WK

Are you really sure? TTFN,WK

Why didn't you? I have never seen any pro-evlutionary members on this board suggest that teaching evolution should be used as a pulpit for preaching atheism, I have seen many anti-evolutionary members claim that ID should be taught. Bakkers post clearly did not believe ID belonged in the science classroom, hardly a position anyone on the pro-evolutionary side was going to take issue with.As to Dawkins, he can be a smug ass, I have never been his biggest fan so I can't say I'm cut up about Bakker's criticisms of him and I'm not familiar enough with his work to say whether the criticism of his historical view of evolutionary science's development is justified. I don't consider that sort of hardcore atheist evolutionist, who uses evolution as a rationale for their atheism, to be a common occurrence.I agree that the post provided some food for thought however, Perhaps it could be used as the basis for a new thread to discuss it, it might also provide a thread wher Dr. Bakker could continue to share his thoughts with us if he returns since the original thread he posted in has now closed.TTFN,WK

Well I would be glad if you had a look over his posts in his debut thread, 'Is ID scientific'. Read his comments on molecular biology and his argument from irreducible complexity based upon carbon and tell us ifyou think he is doing a good job making a scientific argument.TTFN,WK