> asked you if you agreed there could be a bad "pro" evolution article and the only answer you've been able to envision is a Lamarkian "evolution" article.
I suppose you want me to list every single possibility for a "bad" article on evolution?
You asked this...
Tell me: If the National Geographic ran an article on Newtonian physics, in which it brushed aside the arguements of those pushing antigravity and inertialess drives while at the same time brushing aside the problems with Newtonian physics (such as reletivistic issues); whoudl you still consider the article to be a poor one?
And I guess the answer is that if you want to address a defined group of people who don't understand or accept Newtonian Physics, and yet you fail to account for questions that group has consistently articulated, then yes, it would be a poor article producing more heat than light. (In Newtonian terms)
The point is, rational dialogue places strict demands on those who would approach her. I've found many creationist arguments to fall far short of reason. I've found an equal percentage of evolutionist apologetic to be poorly executed and unpursuasive.
If evolutionists are going to win over the half of the world that rejects their teachings despite a monopoly on education on the matter, they will, some day, need to raise the bar on quality at their own presses. After all, they are the ones with all the capability for abstract thought, why not require them to achieve the higher standard of discourse first?