<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Christian thinkmag wars over intelligent design</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hells-handmaiden.com/2007/06/30/christian-thinkmag-wars-over-intelligent-design/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hells-handmaiden.com/2007/06/30/christian-thinkmag-wars-over-intelligent-design/</link>
	<description>Politics, Philosophy, Religion... and their collisions with the real world.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:35:07 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: themaiden</title>
		<link>http://www.hells-handmaiden.com/2007/06/30/christian-thinkmag-wars-over-intelligent-design/#comment-103711</link>
		<dc:creator>themaiden</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2007 19:03:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hells-handmaiden.com/2007/06/30/christian-thinkmag-wars-over-intelligent-design/#comment-103711</guid>
		<description>Only among some segments of the educated populace.

O'Leary links to UncommonDescent as a source-- bad start-- and she links to an article she wrote for UncommonDescent. That article links to an article in &lt;a href="http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55593/page/2;jsessionid=baa9dVGZ3tr2d7" rel="nofollow"&gt;The American Scientist&lt;/a&gt; which show a high percentage of atheists in fields related to evolutionary biology. The same in not true in other  &lt;a href="http://www.rice.edu/sallyport/2006/winter/sallyport/scientists.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;areas of acedemia&lt;/a&gt;, but atheism still fairs better than in the general population.

What is interesting is that rather than ask why some biologists tend so strongly toward atheism, she immediately concludes that the atheism is responsible for the biology. I'd bet the causality is the other way 'round.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Only among some segments of the educated populace.</p>
<p>O&#8217;Leary links to UncommonDescent as a source&#8211; bad start&#8211; and she links to an article she wrote for UncommonDescent. That article links to an article in <a href="http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55593/page/2;jsessionid=baa9dVGZ3tr2d7" rel="nofollow">The American Scientist</a> which show a high percentage of atheists in fields related to evolutionary biology. The same in not true in other  <a href="http://www.rice.edu/sallyport/2006/winter/sallyport/scientists.html" rel="nofollow">areas of acedemia</a>, but atheism still fairs better than in the general population.</p>
<p>What is interesting is that rather than ask why some biologists tend so strongly toward atheism, she immediately concludes that the atheism is responsible for the biology. I&#8217;d bet the causality is the other way &#8217;round.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kip152</title>
		<link>http://www.hells-handmaiden.com/2007/06/30/christian-thinkmag-wars-over-intelligent-design/#comment-103703</link>
		<dc:creator>kip152</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:26:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hells-handmaiden.com/2007/06/30/christian-thinkmag-wars-over-intelligent-design/#comment-103703</guid>
		<description>Thanks to Denyse, I do have hope. I didn't realize atheists were the majority!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks to Denyse, I do have hope. I didn&#8217;t realize atheists were the majority!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
