tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7249837629386789627.post6975535213219889721..comments2008-03-26T23:22:21.424-04:00Evolved Rationalisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10145578845908854985[email protected]Blogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7249837629386789627.post-57425239612287388272008-03-26T23:22:00.000-04:002008-03-26T23:22:00.000-04:00When has telling the truth about science and religion been equal to insulting people?<BR/><BR/>I see that the framers have done their work.The Evolved Rationalisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10145578845908854985[email protected]tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7249837629386789627.post-11672819357294880672008-03-26T21:28:00.000-04:002008-03-26T21:28:00.000-04:00I'm skeptical of both methods: the angry method and the appeaser method. I really don't think that insulting people convinces anyone to believe in any position.Skeptic4uhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03245932333054627793[email protected]tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7249837629386789627.post-86213787818066110882008-02-16T15:30:00.000-05:002008-02-16T15:30:00.000-05:00While I generally agree with your opinions here, I think it is a generalisation to say that Mooney is "anti-science". In both his "The Republican War on Science" and "Storm World" he has put forth a reasonably unbiased and objective perspective of science. From these two books it appears that he clearly respects science and objective evidence. I don't know what's with him when he is writing about Dawkins here.Ashutoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639[email protected]