I haven't said they contain and creationist sentiments, nor have I accused you - so that should qualify as 'anyone'. I can understand where the confusion has arisen in that they sound like the sorts of arguments that weve heard very often before but that is not evidence of explicitly stated creationist sympathies so I haven't accused you. Neither has Ashley nor Christine accused you of anything, so that is a couple more 'anyones'.
As usual I appreciate the tone of your response, Cathy, but I did not challenge Roger (or someone) to simply not accuse me of something for which they have no evidence. The challenge was to quote the post that actually indicates creationist sympathies or admit that there is no such quote and that the suspicion with which Roger originally regarded me was not based on data. He made his assumption and has not let anything I have said change his mind. Remember, my opening sentence of this thread was the explicit statement that I was not attempting to argue a creationist interpretation. Roger responded to that by assuming I am a creationist:
I'd like, instead, for you to provide your creationist position.
And followed it up with:
Bullshit. You are.
Now review my posts before that. You will find that Roger based his assumption on the mere fact that I was asking questions about evolution. I understand that you respect him for the role he has played in promoting science education, but that attitude hardly seems appropriate for someone interested in fostering learning about evolution. I would say in fact that it is a good example of someone, as you say, allowing "egos and opinions to mess that up by either alienating their religous allies or their atheist ones" That is why I think it is important that Roger own up and admit that he is in this instance guilty of making a conclusion and maintaining an assertion that he has not even attempted to justify. So while I genuinely appreciate the fact that you and others have tried to responded to what I have said rather than to my alleged secret plans, what I am after is not simply to not be accused of something. I am after an admission that there is in fact no evidence for such accusations (or of course examples of such evidence).
I have previously stated that I am aware that many here are sensitive to anti-science views and I can appreciate that my questions may superficially resemble Marc's. But surely if I were laying a trap for Christine I would have sprung it by now.
It is also possible that SkepticalOne is an OECer. Don't know either way on that one.
You could find out, Roger. Just quote your support for your position or admit that there is none.