This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://biologos.org/blogs/deborah-haarsma-the-presidents-notebook/biologos-story-in-slate
Patrick has already posted this story here.
I’m aware of that. These threads are auto-generated when we post something.
It would be interesting to analyze the comments as there were nearly a 1000. Perhaps bin them into a few categories like a) share your views, b) empathetic to your views, and c) opposed or ambivalent to your views. The demographics of Slate readers are surely broader than here.
The demographics of their comment boards are not representative of their readership. The Slate journalist made that clear. I think it’s the case with most websites.
Interesting, I thought that they would be representative. Oh well, wrong again.
Well, I should rephrase that. There’s a lot of atheists and skeptics who read Slate. But the comment section is made up primarily of the sorts of atheists who are loud, angry, and comment without actually taking the time to interact with what I’m saying. Not like you, @Patrick.
Wartburg Watch basically reprinted most of the Slate article (along with commentary on another article about Ken Ham and baramins that someone had linked here in one of the threads) and got 361 comments. They have a more diverse commenter-ship. Lots of disaffected ex-fundamentalists, some progressive evangelicals, some skeptics, some die-hard conservatives. I suggested people come over here and discuss more.
This topic was automatically closed 4 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.