Jayjay

Let's not stereotype Finns. I know many Finnish people, myself included, who do not play videogames at all.

About the column series, I'm not so sure if it's a good idea. If the creationists can always send a letter to the editor that's copy-pasted from some AiG article that's designed to sound convincing, the heads that might have been swayed by your column will be swayed back to the creationist nonsense (after all, it takes a bit of experience to distinguish the fallacies of well-crafted creationist propaganda). In the end you might end up looking like an evil evolutionist trying to push your "religion", which is exactly the image cretionists want to paint. Maybe if the topics were more about exposing the holes in the creationist/ID position might work better...

Ah but what do I know.

MrDarwin

Actually I think that's a good idea. Don't respond with a column about evolution; respond with a column addressing the specific errors and problems in the letters people wrote, and why they are errors and problems.

manderguy

I like the idea of a regular piece on evolution. You could broaden it to include any interesting science. That would help keep you from being the scary evolutionist. In addition, you could just run a science column whenever you felt like it. Once a month may require more time in research mode than you have to spare.

I would start with some of the more interesting pieces of evidence that people mentioned here . I also remember something from a couple months ago about humans having the tail genes in common with a mouse.
If you run short of ideas, I'm sure the regulars here have plenty.

Darwin's Terrier's big list of suboptimal designs is probably a gold mine. You could write a column on the innervation of the heart going up through the neck and then back down. You don't even need to write it from the angle of "explain this, creationists", just go with a "huh, how about that oddity..." These sorts of oddities in nature helped Victorian England move away from god-did-it stuff. Couch the evolution stuff as left over from an ancestor. You don't even have to mention the E word.

And don't worry about your lack of expertise. The difference between you and the typical creationist is that you actually analyze the information instead of using the appeal to authority found in letters that say "Well, biochemist PhD Behe says....".

beekay

I probably will do a monthly evolution column. I have covered interesting science tidbits and news in the past, but not with any regularity ... just when something sparked my interest.

I think I will address the subject from the point of "debunking" the creationist claims, but not in a direct debating way. For example, I will cover the sun shrinking arguement just as a matter of course (just as if I were covering a debunking of Planet X or other silly nonsense.). I won't mention that the arguement was used in a letter to the editor nor will I mention the letter writer at all. I'll just go with it like: "Did you hear the crazy shrinking sun idea? Let me tell you about it and why it is unsound."

Thank you all for all of the food for thought you've posted here. It definitely helped me reach a decision.

beekay

Ummmmm, O.K. ... I'm still fairly new here so I need to ask: why can't I edit my post after a certain amount of time has passed? I read through my post and found spelling errors I want to correct, but I can't right now.

No big deal I suppose. Just curious.

Writer@Large

The EDIT feature is set for two hours. After that, the post is closed to changes from anyone but an Admin, and we won't edit unless we deem it neccessary.

IIDB FAQ.

--Writer@Large
--IIDB Administrator