Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Hi Allan

I'll do better than publish your comment as a comment. I'll put it here so the two or three people who read this will be sure to see it. Plus, we can just discuss things here if you like. I don't have the patience for "Dawkins land." It's like dealing with people who think the earth is flat or who think the moon is closer than Chicago because they can see the moon but not Chicago. Let me know what part of evolution I "caricature." We can start there.

Alan Fox has left a new comment on your post "A post I made at Uncommon Descent":

Hi Tom

Are your questions just rhetorical, or are you looking for answers? You are unlikely to get much response from anyone other than dyed-in-the-wool creationists at UD, as ID critics get routinely weeded out.

Why not go back to Richard Dawkins' forum if you are genuinely interested in understanding evolutionary theory, rather than the caricature you portray? I would have posted at UD but I'm banned there.

I wonder if you'll approve my comment?


Alan Fox said...

Hi Tom

OK, you published my comment. Well done!

Alan Fox said...

Tom wrote:Plus, we can just discuss things here if you like.

Unfortunately, having pre-moderation enabled is not conducive to a free exchange of ideas, so if I were inclined to discuss your misconceptions of evolutionary biology with you, I wouldn't do it here.

If you seriously want to try and understand the concept of evolution, plus the new field of evo-devo, you could try reading Sean Carroll's "Endless forms More Beautiful". Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale" is good, too, but I guess you would consider that "consorting with the enemy".

If you go right into discussing science subjects on the net without any grasp of the subject you are likely to get short shrift, as happened at Dawkins.net

Alan Fox said...

It just occurs to me that there is an ID friendly forum where the moderation is not too draconian: the arn forum.

If you want, I'll post your comment (A post I made at Uncommon Descent) as a new topic.

Alan Fox said...

One out of three is better than none, I guess.

New thread at ARN