I am very mildly curious as to whether the concern for the cost of legal defense would be as great if the conditions were reversed.
If one feels that a closely held position is being attacked, for whatever reason, should one defend it or not? The old saying,
“All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing” comes to mind.

If I found a restaurant that I thought was especially good, would I not tell my friends? Why, then, would someone become enraged if it were not their
favorite restaurant?

Just reading the comments here, it seems about 3:1 in favor of Darwin’s version of evolution. That is not surprising, as,
“Birds of a feather flock together.”
However, comma, what surprises me is the venom in the denunciation of the one by the three. It seems that any disagreement to the proper position
is aggressively attacked, while the attitude of the one to the three is much more mildly stated. Perhaps I am being too sensitive.

One of my granddaughter’s teachers has announced on more than one occasion that he is an atheist. I don’t know why he felt it necessary to
point that out. Similarly, a new person on the Daily Cageliner staff thought we should all know she is a lesbian. I suppose she is waiting for some
disagreeable word so she can cry discrimination. I can think of no other
reason to bring it up.

Anyway, it would be nice, if unrealistic, to think that we could discuss the topics, without excessive self-aggrandizement delivered by pointing out
the total idiocy of some of the posters.