Blot saving

I saw this post from Critias on the Son of Peter blot. Just thought I'd save it in case it was removed by MJ in a fit of the 'boo hoos' (refer to MJ's old comment on this blog where his incisive comment was ... "boo hoo"... yep, that's what they must teach at Moore!).

The blog its from is the Evangelical Manifesto

"I like it that it doesn't mention 'creationism' "... [quoting another comment] do we also like it that it doesn't set our faith on the ground of God's creation as he sets his 'manifesto'; that is, the Bible?
No. . .well, ho hum, another human attempt to substitute for the word of God and appeal to the world in its terms, instead of God's.
But, that said, I don't see the point. Who is the M supposed to influence? World media? They won't care. It certainly will have no effect on the next taxi driver I ask "so, do you think we descended from monkeys?".

The some bright spark, with no irony function, scolded for the 'evolved from monkeys' faux pas, and Crit, said:

Mike, I am aware of standard evolutionary doctrine on this point. However, if discussing with a taxi driver, my conversational tactic is to arouse a response that will enable me to steer a conversation to Christ. This is a pretty reliable opener.
If I was writing a paper on the matter I would adopt a diffent course.
Incidently natural selection is a conservative, not an innovative process: it selects and eliminates from the gene pool, but does not expand it. It was first discussed in any detail, to my knowledge, by Edward Blyth, who influenced Darwin. More on Blyth here: creationontheweb.com/content/view/493/