Your choice is TOO narrow.
IF you had stuck with permitting a response to,
quote:
The reason given for this (claimed) behaviour is that it is due to a lack of belief or being an atheist.
THEN
I could have devolved to the "fairy circle"(as to empirical context) (in ECSCOTT's Evs.C (I started to review) in
EvC Forum: Evolution Vs. Creationism)
where by 1st ammendment(US) (wrongly modified on my opinion as in a response say^I^to^you @ your first paragraph(regardless of possible independent reasons of content)
One of the constant claims that appears time and time again is that Scientist/academics cannot be trusted in regards to judging "religious" matter as they will suppress any evidence that does not fit a materialist world view.
IN SUBSTANTIA the fact came out for Scott where I would be able by reference to what has already happened be able to show that the relation of Catholic immigrants and Protestant endemics what is NOT PROHIBITED BY THE STATES is missocalized/anthropologized (by Scott) (I GUESS FOR THE REASON YOU MENTIONED--THAT BY NOT BEING A RELIOIUS ENOUGH PERSON (nair belief or being atheist)THE DESIGN OF THE EVIDENTIAL CIRCLE OF PEOPLE, FUNGI, AND KANTIAN SCHOLARHIP was not written by this author IN THE POWER OF THESE PEOPLE but instead as "bad science" but rather you remand that a different people in your choice be discussed.
We would only need to be this tricky in internet conversation if one WAS trying to use the new electronic formats to CHANGE (not modify) the fact %INTO% evidence (like playing the part of "activist judges" etc.) I dont do this and seeing that you posted twice in a row that is prima facie evidence to me that you dont either.
I would not know if there was out and out suppresion (in the case of Scott's foreward by Eldgredge say that attempts a false verticalization (on their lingo)) unless I responded to you as to if the foreword DOES apply your choice but then we would be talking in the other direction that we cant even get physiologically to let alone psychologically nor linguistically because you too soon attempted to cut the human out of the humas, but I do think the reason I would is because of the issue you started out from in this thread head. Instead I am fairly confident I find Scott using the words "false evidence" in the LEGAL THEORY (not science sense of the word "theory") where this WAS "false fact" BEFORE Scott wrote the work as a regression line of ID through any brand of c/e.
Thus even excluding myself and only doing the writing in terms of my parents generation I find I can not answer you in the form you requested be replied to. So it is not in my case that I do not *want* to step up. I can't. And I can't do it, on purpose!
™ Version 4.2
