"Guy Hoelzer"  wrote in message
news:c78ibb$m6e$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> Dear Perplexed in Peoria (aka Jim),
>
> in article c7778g$a50$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org, Perplexed in Peoria at
> jimmenegay{at}sbcglobal.net wrote on 5/3/04 9:47 PM:
>
> >
> > "Guy Hoelzer"  wrote in message
> > news:c76ief$26j$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> >> in article c71mk5$1knv$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org,
> >
> >> If we put the responses by Tim and Jim together, we have a rational
> >> representation of ideas from current evolutionary biology.  I nominate
> > them
> >> as a pair to replace Dr. Dawkins as spokespersons to the general public
> >> regarding issues of evolutionary biology.
> >
> > More seriously, an ideal spokesperson for evolutionary biology must do
two
> > things.
> > 1. Get the facts and ideas right.
>
> This is the issue of my concern here.
>
> > 2. Make it interesting enough so that the public will read it.
>
> I treated this as an issue of secondary importance.  Indeed, I sometimes
> lament how effective some folks like Dawkins and Gould are (were in the
case
> of Gould) at communicating with the public, because their writing skills
> make it easy for them to pull the wool over the eyes of their readers.
>
> > I believe that Gould and Dawkins have done such an excellent job on #2
that
> > we should forgive them their occasional lapses on #1.
>
> I am not so forgiving because I consider #1 to be much more important than
> #2.

I'm not sure that the public is as gullible and as easily manipulated as you
seem to think.  There are plenty of spokespersons that the public can
read, and few members of the public stick to only one source.  The
public can note disagreements and judge arguments.  I think that the
public would be misled about the nature of the science if they only
had access to an orthodox synthesis.

In fact, your suggestion that some sample of the public posters to this
newsgroup can fairly represent the diversity of views among the
professionals
tends to make my case.  We all were educated on this subject by Gould,
Dawkins, and even Goodwin et al.  Of course, there are some "three-sigma"
posters in this newsgroup that you might want to exclude from your sample,
but you cannot fairly blame Gould and Dawkins for them.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 5/5/04 6:28:38 AM