Tch, tch, the facts, eh? He complains that he doesn't have access to the "fifteen papers" in Nature supposedly referenced in Williams' article, completely having failed to notice the link to the ONE AND ONLY article at Nature that Williams referenced (from which he can also link to the original sources for each of the fifteen "gems" they cover), or the link to the radio program, given in the EvC post itself, which is ONLINE and doesn't require possession of a radio.[Williams] Last Friday, Dec 3, we discussed this article on our half-hour 'Real Science Friday' show. We are interested in giving evolutionists the opportunity to call in and comment on either the article, or what we discussed on the radio.[Dr. A] While there are a few questions I'd like to ask you, I can't comment on what you said on the radio last week because I wasn't listening. Nor, indeed, do I have a radio.
While I can spot numerous instances of gormless stupidity in your article, in order to comment accurately on it in toto, I should need to read the fifteen papers referenced in the original article, and I do not currently have access to Nature.
Nor, I presume, do you, since you never quoted a single word of any of the papers; and while this did not inhibit you from forming a view on their content and validity, it would provide me with certain difficulties, since I prefer to base my opinions on the facts.
Since I would like to encourage him to read and hear all the relevant material in the hope that he might choose to participate in the upcoming radio discussion, here are the links again:
Fred Williams' article,
The Nature article (singular),
The radio program .
Just wanted to get this much posted for the sake of Dr. A and anyone else who might like to follow that discussion, but I may make my own comments on this topic myself eventually, although, as I've recently said, I've pretty much abandoned the effort to deal with the science questions because the deck is stacked in such a way as to make it futile.