I have to quote this, because, by talking with more moderate atheists online, I can’t help but agree with her:
While there were genuine concerns to be raised about the impact of religious beliefs on public policy, what could have been a good-natured movement for secularism became a lightning rod for frustrated young men who wanted to insult people who believed in “sky-gods,” to the point where a lot of atheists began to label the movement toxic and tried to distance themselves from it.
Young men ruin everything. Then they turn into old men who would ruin everything, if they still had the energy.
In my experience, most of the people who use logic in their arguments aren’t really using logic. They like to claim that they are using logic.
Typically, most of their argument has to do with persuading people to accept their premises. The logic – the part that gets from the premises to the conclusion – is often trivial and uncontroversial. It’s the premises that are controversial.
Speaking of men, why are there almost no women posting here? The only two I can think of are Ann Gauger and AJ Roberts. And why are the only women both creationists?
Let me pout out that they are among the most reasonable and rational of their respective “teams.”
@AJRoberts is working on a book. We will see more about RTB as our partnership gets off the ground.
@agauger is caught in a storm, with DI exploding against us. Until things die down, I imagine it will be hard for her to contribute here. Next week though, the two of us are doing a taped dialogue in California. Looking forward to it!
Don’t forget “Auntyevology” and “Sharon Mahoney” 
It would seem better to forget them.
As for attracting more women, that would be a good thing. We need a less argumentative approach. It is possible that other on ramps, outside the forum, will be helpful too.
Since I’ve been following the evolution/ID stuff I’ve only come across one woman on the pro evo side. I’ve gone blank on her name but she did a lot of stuff on ERVs.
Most women are smart enough to stay away from the toxic attacks that come from DI. Don’t forget Eugenie Scott though.
Oh yeah! So two.
Abbie Smith is the name of the other
Christine Janis is another. Big-name mammal paleontologist.
And, as you know, she’s an outstanding vertebrate comparative anatomy expert. Her textbook is quite popular.
Peaceful science?
How about toxic attacks that are all too common in origins. It’s not just DI.
I’m not the arbiter. I ask that you judge your own statement.
Do you think that is amendment is better? Why did you phrase it the way you originally did?
I know we all have bad days and say things that are unwarranted and we wish we could take them back. I’m just going through some old posts. It just seems that “the toxic attacks that come from DI” is quite inconsistent with I Agree With Behe
Chesterton apparently said something like, Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried.
Well, I am trying it and am finding it difficult. I fail every hour.
Or, how about,
Toxic attacks that are all too common in origins (even on Peaceful Science). It’s not just DI.
Simple logic dictates that Behe and the DI are two different entities.
