<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 10-07-07</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-07-07/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-07-07/</link>
	<description>Promoting Science and Critical Thinking</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:04:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dwarkanath Kulkarni</title>
		<link>http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-07-07/#comment-2163</link>
		<dc:creator>Dwarkanath Kulkarni</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Aug 2010 11:18:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.skeptic.com/?p=3711#comment-2163</guid>
		<description>Does it mean that laypersons like me should drink in only what practicing evo biologists say and pay no heed to any critical effort on the part of outsiders like FPP to understand natural selection ?
Let me explain .
I am a layperson.Not even a student of biology. I read such reviews very simply to be informed. In this instance I happened to read also the review of the same book by Richard Lewontin in NYRB who I presume has impeccable credentials as evo bio.It appears to me that the general tone of the NYRB review is more or less diametrically opposite to that of Prof. Prothero .Especially being laudatary about the authors of the reviewd book not being card carrying biologists.
What do I do next? 
Is there supposed to be in such cases an adjudicating review ( like peer review)? 
How does my &#039; being informed&#039; get evolved?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does it mean that laypersons like me should drink in only what practicing evo biologists say and pay no heed to any critical effort on the part of outsiders like FPP to understand natural selection ?<br />
Let me explain .<br />
I am a layperson.Not even a student of biology. I read such reviews very simply to be informed. In this instance I happened to read also the review of the same book by Richard Lewontin in NYRB who I presume has impeccable credentials as evo bio.It appears to me that the general tone of the NYRB review is more or less diametrically opposite to that of Prof. Prothero .Especially being laudatary about the authors of the reviewd book not being card carrying biologists.<br />
What do I do next?<br />
Is there supposed to be in such cases an adjudicating review ( like peer review)?<br />
How does my &#8216; being informed&#8217; get evolved?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tracy Ramsey</title>
		<link>http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-07-07/#comment-2009</link>
		<dc:creator>Tracy Ramsey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 04:22:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.skeptic.com/?p=3711#comment-2009</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ll grant you that one. Personally I&#039;ve never thought there has ever been the need of a &quot;devil&quot; to explain the evil that men do. We are perfectly capable of the most horrific of evil acts all on our own, without any need for an outside influence. Luckily there are enough good people in the world to keep the worlds a-holes from running riot. Still, some folks can&#039;t seem to face up to the fact that the only &quot;devil&quot; they will ever confront, is the one they see in the mirror.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ll grant you that one. Personally I&#8217;ve never thought there has ever been the need of a &#8220;devil&#8221; to explain the evil that men do. We are perfectly capable of the most horrific of evil acts all on our own, without any need for an outside influence. Luckily there are enough good people in the world to keep the worlds a-holes from running riot. Still, some folks can&#8217;t seem to face up to the fact that the only &#8220;devil&#8221; they will ever confront, is the one they see in the mirror.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Loughlin Tatem</title>
		<link>http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-07-07/#comment-2008</link>
		<dc:creator>Loughlin Tatem</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 03:02:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.skeptic.com/?p=3711#comment-2008</guid>
		<description>Ha. Creationists do not blame GOD for the screw ups. They blame god&#039;s screw up, which is the devil.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ha. Creationists do not blame GOD for the screw ups. They blame god&#8217;s screw up, which is the devil.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy</title>
		<link>http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-07-07/#comment-2006</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:02:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.skeptic.com/?p=3711#comment-2006</guid>
		<description>Fluid, well-written, and filled with excellent points, much like your other works I have read.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fluid, well-written, and filled with excellent points, much like your other works I have read.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tracy Ramsey</title>
		<link>http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-07-07/#comment-2005</link>
		<dc:creator>Tracy Ramsey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:50:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.skeptic.com/?p=3711#comment-2005</guid>
		<description>It never ceases to amaze me that creationists never seem to hold &quot;God&quot; accountable for &quot;His&quot; crimes,missteps and outright screw-ups. How do they explain their God&#039;s complicity in all manner of tragic birth defects, genetic diseases and poor design in the first place? As the love of my life was frequently moved to tell me, &quot;God surely can&#039;t be perfect if YOU&quot;RE created in His image!&quot; We are indeed wonders of creation, but without the need to resort to supernatural means to explain things. Isn&#039;t it enough to know that we are the stuff of which stars are made?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It never ceases to amaze me that creationists never seem to hold &#8220;God&#8221; accountable for &#8220;His&#8221; crimes,missteps and outright screw-ups. How do they explain their God&#8217;s complicity in all manner of tragic birth defects, genetic diseases and poor design in the first place? As the love of my life was frequently moved to tell me, &#8220;God surely can&#8217;t be perfect if YOU&#8221;RE created in His image!&#8221; We are indeed wonders of creation, but without the need to resort to supernatural means to explain things. Isn&#8217;t it enough to know that we are the stuff of which stars are made?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-07-07/#comment-2002</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:09:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.skeptic.com/?p=3711#comment-2002</guid>
		<description>The most important point in this very well written piece is that evolution works in a practical way in terms of curing diseases and increasing food production. Those who attack it philosophically have always had a problem actually asserting anything. What diseases can be cured from the creationist point of view? Do the authors of this book have any critiques that, if taken seriously, would improve the way we produce a food surplus?
 A few months ago I was a little distressed to see that Salon.com took the time to do a thorough interview with the authors of this book. I&#039;m glad to see it debunked here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The most important point in this very well written piece is that evolution works in a practical way in terms of curing diseases and increasing food production. Those who attack it philosophically have always had a problem actually asserting anything. What diseases can be cured from the creationist point of view? Do the authors of this book have any critiques that, if taken seriously, would improve the way we produce a food surplus?<br />
 A few months ago I was a little distressed to see that Salon.com took the time to do a thorough interview with the authors of this book. I&#8217;m glad to see it debunked here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

