"When I watch the news , and see someone interviewed , I 'm always mildly irritated by the little caption they attach : `` Joe Bloggs , smoker `` ; `` Jane Middlemiss , motorist `` - like these titles somehow define the person . Stenger is a person , who has personally come to certain conclusions by using his brain and the scientific method . I 'm quite sure he is convinced by the evidence supporting evolution - so what ? So 's Jyoshu ."
"But what he is doing is taking evolution ( considered a `` fact `` ) adding it to a theory ( there is no god ) and trying to convice his reader that he has added ; fact + theory = fact . Evolution seems to do that in it 's subcatagories . How do we distinguish the difference between the validity of when it 's done in a subcatagory vs when it 's done concerning the general term ? Do you get equally irritatied by the little captions under the names of Kent Hovind , or Michael Behe , or Ben Stein , or William Dembski ? Why the double standard ? Why not let them be individuals also ? Why not let them come to certain conclusions without attacking captions , or ideologies ? Why the fear in letting future generations be exposed to their path of thinking ?"
"I 'm quite sure he is convinced by the evidence supporting so what ?"
"what he is doing is taking evolution adding it to a theory and trying to his reader that he has added ; fact + theory = fact . ,"