



[...]


I think you are mistaken in thinking Tom Scharle to be a atheist.
You will find both atheists and Christians among your opponents on t.o.
Calling your opponents them "Branch Athiests zealots" does nothing for
your credibility.


Oh yes, do.



Dear me. This is taken _so_ out of context that it's hard to know where
to start... The quote starts with material from p 78, and ends with material
from page 81!

On page 78, there's the bit that says (the parts left out in John King's
"quote" are marked by <>):
"<...> the doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude
of evolutionary biology<'s last twenty years> has inflamed passions <and
provoked some very interesting thought and research>."

Eldridge goes on immediately following the butchered quote:
"In short, evolutionary biology has entered a phase of creativity that is
the hallmark of good, active science."

The material that is on page 81 that is "quoted" by John King has been
butchered even more severely:

"<I mention this only to illustrate the> **There is**[these words not
in the original text-prl] lack of agreement even within warring camps
<: things are really in uproar these days, and each of the "basic" ways
of looking at evolutionary biology has its minor variants.> Sometimes
it seems as if there are as many variations on each evolutionary theme
as there are individual biologists."

Eldridge goes on:
"But that's the way it should be; this is how science is supposed to operate."


And just a few sentences down:

"When they [creationists] misrepresent the exuberant, creative doubt and
controversy permeating evolutionary biology these days, they are actively
promoting scientific illiteracy."

And that, John E. King, is precisely what you have done with Eldridge's
article. Are you personally responsible for the butchery of the text or
have you pulled it out of some creationist propaganda? You owe the people
reading t.o an apology for posting such misrepresentation.
