This is categorically false. The spotted owl "nonsense" did not eve slow down the "harvesting" of old growth timber. Two things killed the timber industry:

• The lack of available hi-value timber species, i.e. old growth.
• The change in tax policies that made practice of exporting raw logs more profitable than milling them in the U.S. 2. There are more forested acres in the Northwest now than there were in the 1900.

  [citation needed] ...because you clearly do no know what you are talking about.
  In other words, you have fallen for the same timber industry bullshit. What you are going to find, if you even bother to look is an impressive number of "re-forested" acres. Big fucking deal. An acre of Douglas fir saplings is not the same thing as an acre of mature forest, nor will it ever be so, given the industry's current practices.

I believe that you aren't being fair to the "theistic types" in that you aren't being nearly hard enough on those who are taking advantage of them and those who are similarly gullible. Those cocksuckers are, of course, the energy industry. They have a huge interest in not changing things. Their businesses are hugely profitable. Spending money to avoid the erosion of those profits is part of that business. Spending as little as possible in order to preserve as much profit as possible is just good business, and right now, hoodwinking the gullible has the most ROI. I have seen it before....

I grew up in the Pacific Northwest, in a town where every third job was directly related to the forest products industry. All my life, I watched huge swaths of ancient forest fall to clear cutting, knowing that the industry's party line, "Trees are America's Renewable Resource", was just so much cynical corporate bullshit. Planting "four trees for every tree 'harvested'" is not the same thing as growing even one board-foot of timber for every board-foot harvested. But the locals bought it, hook-line-and-sinker, because they wanted to. They needed to believe that their livelihoods were derived from a resource that would always be there. Fast forward forty years, or so. All the old-growth timber is long gone. Countless towns like mine are now ghost towns, "the mill" long closed and most of the forest jobs (fellers, choker setters, etc.) also gone. And the locals are still wondering what happened, while a cynical few, who reaped huge profits from the rape of a resource that can not be replaced in several of our lifetimes, could not give a shit. And the "intellectual elite", those credible experts, including most ironically, a handful of industry foresters, who predicted this can only say, "We told you so."

This same thing is happening now on a global scale WRT climate change. The opinion amongst those most qualified to cast one is overwhelming, dwarfed only by the noise from those whose profit is threatened by that opinion. And those whose livelihood, indeed, those whose very lifestyle depends on the industries that produce those profits, want very badly to believe all the noise. Based on my experience, they will continue to do so until it is far too late to do anything about it.

Get a fucking clue. Your revenues aren't what you want them to be because you don't enforce any of the "common courtesy" rules in your theaters. Talkers, texters, and lately, vapers, have ruined my experience every time I've visited one of your mainstream theaters. With an arguably superior presentation platform available in my house, why would I pay good money to be annoyed throughout the movie in your theater?

The insurance industry is, clearly and demonstrably, not who consumers want in that role. And BTW, straw man much?

+1 for actually understanding the real problem. Well put, sir.

I think that many of them "realize" it, but they've been convinced that bullshit issues like gay marriage and reproductive choice are more important to them.

[citation needed]

What are you talking about? I have not voted for a Republican. Ever.

I say it's completely fathomable. It was the inevitable result of decades of policy aimed at placing more an more power in the hands of corporations. First, they convinced a naive and gullible electorate that "...government is the problem..." and that tax breaks for the "job creators" would make unicorns real. Now, when the Internet, as a medium, threatens to foster genuine public discussion about such policy, they want to censor that too. No surprise it all.

It's just plain amazing, what qualifies as "left wing" these days.

Fuck the multi-media toys. Give me some more leg and elbow room and I'll gladly give up the window.

"Yes, the university is a public institution and must carefully walk the line when dealing with this or that religious group, but...

Presenting your religious beliefs as the credible output of "world renowned scientists" is, to say the least, dishonest. To do so in a plainly admitted attempt to add some attempt to add some academic cache' by deliberately choosing institutions of higher learning as the venue is beneath contempt. "The Bible and science" are absolutely not "in total agreement". Peddle your religion as religion and you are entitled to the public venue. Engage in deceit and lies and you are not.

Honesty.

Certainly not. I would, however, hand their check back to them and observer that they are free to peddle their nonsense anywhere they can find a willing host and audience. The university has no obligation to be either and, arguably, it does have an obligation to avoid being either, since the proposed material is neither reasonable nor scientific.

And again..., why the fuck do you think the university owes them a platform? That's the objection here. We agree that the creationists are a bunch of dim-witted crackpots, and that leaving them to their curious choice of things to believe in is usually the best course, but nobody is obliged to offer them any sort of elevated platform from which to spew their noise. Surely, any number of local churches would have been happy to host this gathering of erudite mythological scholars.