Well; Kevin's not trying to practice science with his paper.
Kevin is trying to resolve issues with claims about Darwin's religious convictions by analyzing the editions of his
Origins. His project sounds very similar to the undertakings of biblical historians who attempt to reconstruct original versions of texts to reveal information about the people who wrote the documents and the people who later edited them.
In Kevin's case, however, the people who wrote the originals and the people who later edited them are one in the same, and his analysis will reveal changes in that person over time as he developed his theory, with a particular focus on the religious aspects of his character.
I find the project interesting precisely because it has nothing to do with practicing science, but is specifically about textual analysis. And on this I believe Kevin and I see things in common, in that we are more interested in these textual and historical matters than we are in the hard science itself. The hard science is good; but some people just have different interests and their study of the hard science is thus indirect.
Why is this a problem? I don't know. I'm okay with it. You seem to be rather okay with it. Others don't mind. But there are some folks here who are lashing out at Kevin at the mere mention of him holding interests in science that don't align with their own.
Those people just need to be ignored.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.
Love your enemies!