Reed A. Cartwright posted Entry 1082 on May 28, 2005 06:52 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1080

I’m quoted in Science & Theology News criticizing ID’s new blog:

Unlike most blogs, however, Intelligent Design The Future does not let readers respond online to the posts.  Reed Cartwright, a contributor to the evolution blog called The Panda’s Thumb, said preventing readers from adding their comments to the online discussion about intelligent design, also known as ID, shows that those who created it are not interested in running an actual blog.

“If ID is the future, as the title of the blog advertises, can’t it withstand criticism?” said Cartwright, a doctoral candidate in genetics at the University of Georgia. “I think that it is ironic that a movement, which claims to want ‘more discussion’ about biology in schools, does not allow discussion [on their blog].”

“The Future” gives a rather poor response to these criticims:

In the blog’s defense, Richards explained that the ID contributors ruled out comments because the debate about intelligent design often becomes malicious. “We would have one post and 30 comments that are vitriolic,” he said.

This might be a valid defense, if “The Future” ever experimented with having comments, but they haven’t.  Is it surprising that ID activists avoid experimentation?

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #32629

Posted by steve on May 28, 2005 7:03 PM (e)

Jay Richards went on to say, “And those 30 vitriolic posts would be physicists commenting on my mentally retarded article on relativity and Einstein. Turns out my physics is as good as Dembski’s biology.”

well, he should have.

Comment #32633

Posted by Anonymous on May 28, 2005 7:31 PM (e)

Jay Richards went on to say, “By ‘vitriolic,’ of course, I mean ‘critical.’”

Comment #32636

Posted by Albion on May 28, 2005 7:52 PM (e)

If those people aren’t trying to give the impression that the future of ID doesn’t involve them presenting their side and everybody else quietly putting up with it, they might want to reconsider that policy. They’re the ones claiming to want fair play with all sides of the - ahem - controversy presented. Claims are one thing, but actions are what counts, and their actions don’t seem to indicate that they want their side to be challenged.

Comment #32645

Posted by bill on May 28, 2005 9:19 PM (e)

I am proud to have been deleted by Bill Dembski himself for posting the most minor of critiques. I think he objected to my handle “Trilobyte” which I thought was a particularly clever justoposition of ancient and modern.

Alas, thin-skinned Bill who’s lost more jobs than I’ve had hot dinners, who is so terrified of losing his immortal soul that he as actually committed damnationable actions (strange that), barricades himself behind the bunker of his pathetic anti-science website.

Answering simple questions is not the forte of “intelligent design” creationists. Like, what research have you done? And I don’t mean stealing and warping the research of others.

The answer is none. Zero. Nothing.

Not a single solitary member of the so-called “Discovery Institute”, which is really a front for conservative Christian malarky, has conducted a millisecond of research on the subject they espouse. All they do, every single lying, malfeasant, fraudulent con-artist who draws a paycheck from the “discovery” institute thrives on deceit, fakery and delusion bordering on madness.

So, come on, DI guys. It’s time to put up or shut up. Where’s the beef? Where’s your research? I have this vision of Behe in a little flagellum driven motorboat cruising around Puget Sound. Is that it? The best you can offer?

Comment #32647

Posted by Ruthless on May 28, 2005 9:33 PM (e)

Albion said:

They’re the ones claiming to want fair play with all sides of the - ahem - controversy presented. Claims are one thing, but actions are what counts, and their actions don’t seem to indicate that they want their side to be challenged.

That’s a good point.
Their whole argument is that they just want equal time in schools to present their message. Yet when it comes to their site, they decide that it’s ok to restrict it just to one message: Their own.

Comment #32648

Posted by Josh Narins on May 28, 2005 9:38 PM (e)

IDtheFuture does use trackback. It’s what you’ve got.

Demsbki’s blog, www.UncommonDescent.com, has comments.

Comment #32649

Posted by Ruthless on May 28, 2005 9:41 PM (e)

In the blog’s defense, Richards explained that the ID contributors ruled out comments because the debate about intelligent design often becomes malicious. “We would have one post and 30 comments that are vitriolic,” he said.

And the reason those comments are vitriolic is…?

Perhaps I can help them answer that: It’s because their side is trying to get lies taught to the public. To argue this, they lie* and lie and lie. And disturbingly, they aren’t even new lies; they are lies that have been told for decades (or more) and have been refuted for decades (or more.) That’s why the debate is “vitriolic.”

Comment #32652

Posted by bill on May 28, 2005 10:39 PM (e)

Demsbki’s blog, www.UncommonDescent.com, has comments.

No it doesn’t. You have to register and if you post anything other than adulation for the Great Bill, you will be deleted and your comments too.

Go ahead, big shot, give it a try. Create an ID and ask Dembski why “intelligent design” is not a course offering at even the most conservative, anti-science, evangelical schools in the world. Taught at Bob Jones University? Nope. Taught at Baylor? Oh, sore subject, but nope. Taught anywhere? Nope.

So, go ahead, big shot, sign up at Dembski’s site and ask a few questions. But don’t be boring. The Great and Powerful Bill doesn’t like boring.

Comment #32654

Posted by Don S on May 28, 2005 11:06 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'i'

Comment #32660

Posted by Albion on May 28, 2005 11:45 PM (e)

He deletes comments because they’re boring? And because they disagree with him rather sharply?

Well, sometimes the process of doing science IS boring. And it’s often contentious.

Honestly, some of these ID people don’t seem to have much of a clue about the way science is done. Or maybe this is part of their attempt to do what their home institution’s title used to call for, and renew science.

Comment #32661

Posted by Steve on May 28, 2005 11:47 PM (e)

Dembski explained somewhere that he deletes comments because they are boring. If there were in fact any contrary points left there under his posts I might believe him. But there aren’t, so I’m going to go with “lie” on that one too.

I just don’t understand it. Why are people still talking about Dembski being a liar as if it is something new. He has had an article up at ARN that is misleading on some statistical concepts. As somebody with a PhD in probability theory and a masters in statistics he is quite well aware that he is being misleading. He has been a known liar since 2001.

The one single comment I made there was deleted too, but not before I made a screen shot of it. Dembski can’t delete 24 hours a day, you know. I have this hilarious cartoon in my head of the austere William Dembski The Important Math Guy sitting at his computer every night and morning feverishly deleting comment after comment, to the exclusion of actually working on ID “Theory”.

Well if you really want to get him going. Try commenting on the older comments and try hitting several at one time.

Comment #32662

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 28, 2005 11:49 PM (e)

For those posting comments to ID-“moderated” places, may I suggest putting a copy of your comment at the AE discussion board?

Comment #32665

Posted by AndyS on May 29, 2005 1:24 AM (e)

I had my comment deleted from a Dembski thread on IDtheFuture. It was a perfectly innocenet and polite question related to his ideas on teaching ID in the classroom. The next day only the the dozen or so comments from IDers remained.

Comment #32673

Posted by Stuart Weinstein on May 29, 2005 3:43 AM (e)

Don writes “Dembski can’t delete 24 hours a day, you know. I have this hilarious cartoon in my head of the austere William Dembski The Important Math Guy sitting at his computer every night and morning feverishly deleting comment after comment, to the exclusion of actually working on ID “Theory”.

Well lets pepper his blog with comments.

Give him something to do.

Comment #32676

Posted by a maine yankee on May 29, 2005 6:03 AM (e)

Watching C-span the other day when a caller from some red state accused the Director of Amnesty-USA of using “big words.”

Do you suppose that the id crowd is on to something when they use “little words” and the articulate advocates of the scientific paradigm can’t because reality is “too complex” for “trains, boats, and planes” metaphors? Just wondering.

Comment #32680

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 29, 2005 8:33 AM (e)

Watching C-span the other day when a caller from some red state accused the Director of Amnesty-USA of using “big words.”

“We’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture.”

—– Ray Mummert, creationist from Dover, Pennsylvania, 2005

Comment #32681

Posted by Lurker on May 29, 2005 8:37 AM (e)

Each one of you has to decide just how much you like to indulge Dembski’s sense of importance. He finds your comments boring. You are equally sure that he doesn’t get it. He’s one man. Don’t you think there are better places to be spending your time to increase public understanding of science than at a blog?

Comment #32682

Posted by Kay on May 29, 2005 9:45 AM (e)

Offtopic: you see the Bushites being called neocons, theocons or fundacons, the words being divisible into (something) + cons. So… why don’t we cut to the chase and call them Decepticons? It’s accurate.

Comment #32685

Posted by Bemused Troll on May 29, 2005 10:10 AM (e)

I would almost be willing to accept ID whole-heartedly given the extent of vitriol, hate, and teenage angst regularly displayed on this forum (and especially in threads such as this).

Conversations, such as this, are indicative of a set of minds who would rather hurl insults than actually engage in research.

Comment #32686

Posted by Les Lane on May 29, 2005 10:25 AM (e)

Dembski, or course, learned his biology from Phillip Johnson, who said:

“What I noticed in 1987, was that Darwinism and evolution were more in my field, legal analysis, than in science. The amount of biology you have to know to argue it is very slim. It was mainly a matter of assumptions and logic.”

Dembski has accepted Johnson’s view of how much biology one needs to know. ID might be a whole lot more interesting if Johnson had been a proctologist instead of a lawyer.

Comment #32688

Posted by Darwinoctonus on May 29, 2005 10:33 AM (e)

Given the level of discourse on this comment board and the animus toward Dembski, why in the world should he let you bozos post on his blog??

Comment #32689

Posted by cleek on May 29, 2005 10:36 AM (e)

I would almost be willing to accept ID whole-heartedly given the extent of vitriol, hate, and teenage angst regularly displayed on this forum

not a very scientific way to evaluate the two positions, IMO.

Comment #32690

Posted by Kay on May 29, 2005 10:43 AM (e)

Dembski is most welcome to post here and his stuff won’t be deleted, although it will probably be picked apart for accuracy. In that respect, I would guess that PT is much more “open to the controversy” that his own blog… As for me, I was just making a little joke.

Comment #32691

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on May 29, 2005 11:11 AM (e)

foot-shooting troll wrote:

Conversations, such as this, are indicative of a set of minds who would rather hurl insults than actually engage in research.

“actually engage in research” - that reminds me, can you point out any actual IDC research?

Comment #32692

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 29, 2005 11:22 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #32693

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 29, 2005 11:24 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #32695

Posted by Pastor Bentonit on May 29, 2005 11:36 AM (e)

Hmmm…behind which of these monikers (Bemused Troll, Darwinoctonus) may we find our old friend Davey?! It´s been a while, you know…

Comment #32696

Posted by Richard on May 29, 2005 11:42 AM (e)

It can’t be emphasized enough, but we must constantly remind ourselves that the modern IDC movement has nothing to do with science. As a religious, social and political movement, its only hope is to change the law so that the teaching of evolution may be legally suppressed, while
“science” is legally redefined to include IDC. To make that happen, it relies entirely upon legal and political maneuvering, together with public relations (AKA “spin”). In this case, it’s already “pre-spun” for its audience, since everyone the blog targets already knows “the truth.” Thus, criticism from real scientists would be superfluous. From a PR standpoint, preempting unfavorable remarks about ID altogether is probably an effective strategy.

Comment #32697

Posted by Pastor Bentonit on May 29, 2005 11:42 AM (e)

Dembski has accepted Johnson’s view of how much biology one needs to know. ID might be a whole lot more interesting if Johnson had been a proctologist instead of a lawyer.

Hear, hear!

Comment #32698

Posted by Malkuth on May 29, 2005 11:59 AM (e)

Bemused Troll wrote:

I would almost be willing to accept ID whole-heartedly given the extent of vitriol, hate, and teenage angst regularly displayed on this forum (and especially in threads such as this).

Conversations, such as this, are indicative of a set of minds who would rather hurl insults than actually engage in research.

Being a teenager myself, and having to put up with peers who display what could be called ‘teenage angst’, I don’t think your comparison between the posters here and angsty teenagers is a very good one. Actually, my angsty peers can better be compared to creationists: both angsty teenagers and creationists develop a hypothesis (depending on the group, either “God did it” or “You’re a faggot”) based not on emperical evidence, but what the person making the assertion wants to be true. The asserter then tries to look for whatever data may possibly be (mis)interperted to support their position, and ignores all data that falsify the hypothesis. They often even make up data. And analogous to ID The Future‘s refusal to allow posting of comments, and Dembski’s deletion of comments that make him feel insecure, the angsty teenagers interrupt any argument (usually with, “No, shut up, we already know you’re a faggot”) made by the person trying to defend the position that he is not a faggot, simply because they don’t wish to hear any argument that may conflict with the assertion.

I can extend the analogy a bit further, actually. Eventually, one would get quite angry with the angsty teenagers for their persistent accusations of faggotry, and perhaps start yelling at the angsty teenagers or even start hitting them. One of the angsty teenagers would then start acusing the assumed “faggot” of being angsty himself, and perhaps of being a psychopath. I believe this particular angsty teenager can best be compared to you, Troll.

Comment #32701

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 29, 2005 12:30 PM (e)

William A. Dembski wrote:

Given the level of discourse on this comment board and the animus toward Dembski, why in the world should he let you bozos post on his blog??

Well, so much for improving the level of discourse.

Comment #32703

Posted by SEF on May 29, 2005 12:49 PM (e)

Comment #32688 was Posted by Darwinoctonus. So, is the citation in #32701 an evidence-based outing of identity or a mistake (or a bad joke)?

Comment #32705

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on May 29, 2005 1:02 PM (e)

Bemused Troll from Plano, Texas wrote:

I would almost be willing to accept ID whole-heartedly given the extent of vitriol, hate, and teenage angst regularly displayed on this forum (and especially in threads such as this).

Perhaps you haven’t been paying attention to WAD. He has been very clear that he deletes comment and trackbacks that “bore” him, not ones that offend him. Personal observation tells me that criticisms are what bore Dembski. Perhaps that explains why he seems to never respond to his strongest critics and often hides behind false identities.

Conversations, such as this, are indicative of a set of minds who would rather hurl insults than actually engage in research.

LOL, care to compare the CV’s of Dembski and “The Future” gang to CV’s of the PT crew? Want to wager which group has produced more research, whether on topic or not?

Comment #32707

Posted by bill on May 29, 2005 1:16 PM (e)

Trilobyte Extinct Again!

I had hoped to spark some dialog but all I got was extinction. Again. Here is my crime for all to read:

I think that Behe, in particular, is on sinking soil. He has no data,
only supposition, to support his conjecture. Although he has had
robust criticism of his mousetrap analogy, for example, he has done no
work to modify the analogy to strengthen it. Without a rigorous
framework with which to identify “design” Behe is doomed to the
strength of his opinion. Unfortunately for Behe, any other opinion is
just as valid.

It’s my opinion that Orr is correct in his observations. ID has failed
to come up with anything more substantial than opinion.

Comment by Trilobyte — May 28, 2005 @ 10:53 pm

Now I ask you, does this reflect vitriol, hate or teenage angst? I was writing in reference to Orr’s article in The New Yorker.

Comment #32709

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on May 29, 2005 1:31 PM (e)

Currently posting on ID The Future

May 28, 2005
Correction for The New York Times: Documentary at Smithsonian Isn’t About Biological Evolution
Jonathan Witt

The New York Times has a story reporting on the June 23rd screening of The Privileged Planet at The Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History. A factual error in the story’s headline and lead sentence suggests that the science documentary makes a case against biological evolution. In fact, the film doesn’t even touch on the subject.

The Privileged Planet focuses on cosmology and astronomy, and on Earth’s place in the universe. One could be a strict Darwinist and still agree with the argument in The Privileged Planet. In fact, that accurately describes at least two of the prominent scientists who endorsed the book.

Comment #32710

Posted by Russell on May 29, 2005 1:40 PM (e)

Lurker wrote:

Each one of you has to decide just how much you like to indulge Dembski’s sense of importance… He’s one man. Don’t you think there are better places to be spending your time to increase public understanding of science than at a blog?

Lurker, of course, has a point. But the whole gimmick behind IDC is that this isn’t your grampa’s creationism. No, this is groundbreaking, leading-edge, world-class research and thinking! Well, who are the Newtons and Einsteins of this new frontier? Whose inaccuracies, bogus claims and shoddy “scholarship” are more worthy of debunking?

Comment #32712

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on May 29, 2005 1:50 PM (e)

Oops, it appears my previous post is in the wrong thread.

Comment #32721

Posted by Steve on May 29, 2005 4:17 PM (e)

…why don’t we cut to the chase and call them Decepticons? It’s accurate.

Because it sounds like a bad ripoff of the Transformers…well that and it might actually be trademarked.

Comment #32724

Posted by roger Tang on May 29, 2005 5:31 PM (e)

“Conversations, such as this, are indicative of a set of minds who would rather hurl insults than actually engage in research.”

Pretty profoundly ignorant statement, given the people who ARE doing research and posting around here.

By the way…what kind of research is current in ID?

Comment #32737

Posted by Lee J Rickard on May 29, 2005 9:58 PM (e)

If you want to help the folks at DI implement comments on their blog, why not simply start a blog that summarizes their posts and accept comments there?

Comment #32738

Posted by Hyperion on May 29, 2005 10:51 PM (e)

Because that would be construed as lending support to his comments, and might even give them a veneer of scientific credibility.

Besides, while I often agree that one of the best methods for curtailing stupidity while still allowing freedom of speech is to continue to repeat stupid things, I think at some point you run into the danger of creating a cultural meme, where you are simply helping a big lie be repeated until it is true.

Besides, such a blog would inevitably become a treasure trove for quote miners.

Comment #32739

Posted by Hyperion on May 29, 2005 10:54 PM (e)

Because that would be construed as lending support to his comments, and might even give them a veneer of scientific credibility.

Besides, while I often agree that one of the best methods for curtailing stupidity while still allowing freedom of speech is to continue to repeat stupid things, I think at some point you run into the danger of creating a cultural meme, where you are simply helping a big lie be repeated until it is true.

Besides, such a blog would inevitably become a treasure trove for quote miners.

Comment #32742

Posted by Hyperion on May 29, 2005 11:03 PM (e)

Because that would be construed as lending support to his comments, and might even give them a veneer of scientific credibility.

Besides, while I often agree that one of the best methods for curtailing stupidity while still allowing freedom of speech is to continue to repeat stupid things, I think at some point you run into the danger of creating a cultural meme, where you are simply helping a big lie be repeated until it is true.

Besides, such a blog would inevitably become a treasure trove for quote miners.

Comment #32743

Posted by Hyperion on May 29, 2005 11:24 PM (e)

I apologize for the triple post…slight technical snafu, please delete

Comment #32744

Posted by steve on May 29, 2005 11:26 PM (e)

Comment #32737

Posted by Lee J Rickard on May 29, 2005 09:58 PM (e) (s)

If you want to help the folks at DI implement comments on their blog, why not simply start a blog that summarizes their posts and accept comments there?

This might not be a bad idea, if done in such a way that clearly it’s not a scientific debate. Maybe, say, after each summary, merely put a link to a preexisting refutation. They only say a few things, after all, over and over. I have half a mind to write a simple paragraph explanation of why Charlie’s Nelson’s Flaw hand-waving is absolute nonsense, and commenting it every time he mentions it, for instance, but I have better things to do than chase cranks.

However, you’d probably quickly get sued, like critics of scientology get sued. For instance, take a look at the disclaimer on an email I got from Answers in Genesis:

IMPORTANT: If you are not the addressee, any form of disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorized. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this from your computer. Forwarding messages without the permission of the original sender may be a breach of copyright law. We cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended.

(italicized part is italicized in the original)

Comment #32745

Posted by Brian on May 30, 2005 12:23 AM (e)

I was recently booted off of Dempski’s site last week. One of my critiques was using a definition of what a mind is (an information-processor) by John Calvert (he was the head attorney in the Kansas trials). I said that this was a rationalistic approach and that new studies in psychology are disputing this. He emailed me saying that I show no evidence of ID ideas and that he was deleting my message. I just came across one of Dembski’s articles that goes against the information-processing mind. He sees the mind as being purely immaterial and wants to get away from any materialistic interpretation (he defines materialism as mindless-bodies, which is too broad and assumes that the mind is a special case). However, my post was critcizing what Calvert was saying and he is the one in charge of getting the movement in schools. So how could I be in the wrong where I quoted someone one from their own movement (http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/).

One last note. Dempski says that he deletes posts that bore him. Please look at the posts here (especially the third one): http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/66 . And show me where the intellectual insight is (even Dembski’s thread starting is completely antiscientific).

Comment #32747

Posted by Don S on May 30, 2005 12:32 AM (e)

SEF wrote:

Comment #32688 was Posted by Darwinoctonus. So, is the citation in #32701 an evidence-based outing of identity or a mistake (or a bad joke)?

Trifurcation Alert :-)

Comment #32749

Posted by steve on May 30, 2005 12:59 AM (e)

Comment #32745

Posted by Brian on May 30, 2005 12:23 AM (e) (s)

I was recently booted off of Dempski’s site last week.

Hmm…this accidental mutation leads, with one more point-mutation, to a new Intelligently Designed misspelling:

Dumpski.

Comment #32751

Posted by steve on May 30, 2005 1:03 AM (e)

Comment #32745

Posted by Brian on May 30, 2005 12:23 AM (e) (s)

I was recently booted off of Dempski’s site last week.

Hmm…this accidental mutation leads, with one more point-mutation, to a new Intelligently Designed misspelling:

Dumpski.

Comment #32752

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 30, 2005 1:06 AM (e)

“Dumpski.”

just for official purposes, let me get on the record that this is not “clever beyond measure”

:p

Comment #32753

Posted by Alan on May 30, 2005 3:03 AM (e)

Not true Dr D deletes all unfavourable comments.

See

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/103#comments

Comment #32754

Posted by Alan on May 30, 2005 3:05 AM (e)

Not true Dr D deletes all unfavourable comments.

See

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/103#comments

Comment #32756

Posted by SEF on May 30, 2005 3:13 AM (e)

It may not be clever beyond measure but is it new information or irreducibly complex? ;-)

Comment #32758

Posted by Rupert Goodwins on May 30, 2005 6:26 AM (e)

Alan said:

Not true Dr D deletes all unfavourable comments.

See

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/103#commen …

I say, that’s a bit off. Is it really the case that the only people capable of making non-“insipid and asinine” comments worthy of retention are pro-Dembskivitches? Either that or nobody has spotted the numerous errors in that referred piece, or nobody feels it worthy of refutation. Unlikely, given the high profile of Dembski and the low quality of that piece – persistently misunderstanding or misrepresenting basic evolutionary concepts, misunderstanding or misrepresenting analogies, and curious ambiguities. One is particularly interesting: “Behe and I are both on record that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random variation (even when supplemented with other material mechanisms) is inadequate for generating irreducible complexity and most of the complexity we see in biological systems.” What does ‘on record that’ mean? On record as demonstrating? As showing? As believing? As stating? I wonder if the missing verb is missing because it cuts to the crux of ID’s apparent wish: to state a belief should be given the status of demonstrating a fact.

Dembski does himself no favours by putting up (to be charitable) badly edited pieces such as that and refusing to entertain criticism. I am unable to comment on the scientific accuracy of the Newtonian parallels (well, I’m more than able!), but he most certainly seems to have some of that man’s robust attitude towards “insipid and asinine” opposition.

R

Comment #32764

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on May 30, 2005 7:45 AM (e)

Brian wrote:

He emailed me saying that I show no evidence of ID ideas

Did you thank him?

Comment #32770

Posted by Brian on May 30, 2005 9:54 AM (e)

Bayesian Bouffant wrote:
Did you thank him?

No I did not. Let me make it clear that he did not boot me that posting listed above. I kept posting and he kept deleting them. I was booted after stating how ridiculous it was that someone posted evolution is illogical and that Dembski reverts to intuition to build up his crowd and that he thinks that just because there is a poll showing that most Americans feel there is an ID, that this spells trouble for Darwin. However, Dembski argues that Edward Kennedy made a remark that ID is wrong and Dembski wrote a response saying that Kennedy is not a scientist and should not be making such a remark. Also, Dembski was happy that Lou Dobbs on his program said that he thinks evolution is hard to believe for the origin of life.

So, Dembski is glad that non-scientists claim that ID is possible, but then gets bent-out-of-shape when non-scientists say ID is wrong. It is too hard to keep track of his numerous contradictions.

Brian

Comment #32772

Posted by Ac on May 30, 2005 9:59 AM (e)

Unlike most blogs, however, Intelligent Design The Future does not let readers respond online to the posts. Reed Cartwright, a contributor to the evolution blog called The Panda’s Thumb, said preventing readers from adding their comments to the online discussion about intelligent design, also known as ID, shows that those who created it are not interested in running an actual blog.

This is a rather stupid criticism, Mr. Cartwright. How does not enabling comments imply disinterest “in running an actual blog” ? Are Glenn Reynolds and Josh Marshall not running “actual blogs,” then? If that’s the case you’d better inform them forthwith - their millions of regular readers (hundreds of times your own, by the way) have been laboring under the delusion that they were reading real blogs.

Seriously, of all the things you could say, you had to choose this?

Comment #32773

Posted by Ac on May 30, 2005 10:01 AM (e)

Unlike most blogs, however, Intelligent Design The Future does not let readers respond online to the posts. Reed Cartwright, a contributor to the evolution blog called The Panda’s Thumb, said preventing readers from adding their comments to the online discussion about intelligent design, also known as ID, shows that those who created it are not interested in running an actual blog.

This is a rather stupid criticism, Mr. Cartwright. How does not enabling comments imply disinterest “in running an actual blog” ? Are Glenn Reynolds and Josh Marshall not running “actual blogs,” then? If that’s the case you’d better inform them forthwith - their millions of regular readers (hundreds of times your own, by the way) have been laboring under the delusion that they were reading real blogs.

Seriously, of all the things you could say, you had to choose this?

Comment #32774

Posted by Ac on May 30, 2005 10:04 AM (e)

Sorry for the duplicate. I got a message on the first click saying your server was busy.

Comment #32775

Posted by Unstable Isotope on May 30, 2005 10:08 AM (e)

Perhaps the vitriol the trolls see in the discourse (I don’t see it, BTW) is that ID proponents refuse to engage in scientific debate yet are pushing their ideas into textbooks and the mainstream. Since they can’t stand up to scientific rigor, they resort to tricks.

Comment #32780

Posted by Brian on May 30, 2005 10:29 AM (e)

And yet AC’s post remains.

A blog is meant not for an idealogue to spill their ideas onto the web because it is the only place to get exposure. A blog is meant for discourse among people. No ID blog allows that. It is like a dictatorship. I do not like what you write so I will censor it to keep a bad image away from others and then claim that there are no worthy opponents. Then, I will post all of my ideas and all who bow down to me to show how great I am and how much I am loved. It is sort of like the Iraqi “election” process during Saddam’s era. He walked around the streets with cameras with him kissing babies, shaking everyone’s hand and showing the world how much he is loved. Too bad they did not show his brutal murders to not mislead the “voters”.

Brian

Comment #32785

Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 30, 2005 11:23 AM (e)

Go ahead, big shot, give it a try.  Create an ID and ask Dembski why Go ahead, big shot, give it a try.  Create an ID and ask Dembski why “intelligent design” is not a course offering at even the most conservative, anti-science, evangelical schools in the world.  Taught at Bob Jones University?  Nope.  Taught at Baylor?  Oh, sore subject, but nope.  Taught anywhere?  Nope.

This raises an interesting question – why isn’t “intelligent design” taught at Bob Jones University? Seems to me they’d jump at the opportunity to give ID some faux respectability.

Comment #32793

Posted by Josh Narins on May 30, 2005 12:01 PM (e)

bill,

I’m a big shot? I was pointing out that when I look at the trackback for ID the Future, mostly I see the scientific community. It isn’t as direct as comments, but if you carefully craft one’s intro paragraph, it amounts to the same thing.

I simply noticed that Dembski had comments. I had no idea they got deleted. That makes me ignorant, not a big shot.

Geeze, as some might say, panties? bunched?

Comment #32794

Posted by Josh Narins on May 30, 2005 12:08 PM (e)

Arden Chatfield,
I didn’t check the others, but BJU’s Creed says “The theistic evolutionist attempts to reconcile Genesis to evolution. But it cannot be done; the two are irreconcilable.”

Comment #32797

Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 30, 2005 12:49 PM (e)

I didn’t check the others, but BJU’s Creed says “The theistic evolutionist attempts to reconcile Genesis to evolution. But it cannot be done; the two are irreconcilable.”

Hmmm. This raises more questions than it answers. But it seems to be saying that ID doesn’t work. Is this their elliptical way of saying ID should be dropped in favor of straight hard-line creationism?

This raises the question, is creationism taught at BJU? If so, it’s ironic to realize the position that ID then seems to be in relative to being taught at universities: too scientific for Christian colleges, nowhere near scientific enough for everyone else.

Comment #32798

Posted by Rich on May 30, 2005 12:52 PM (e)

The trackback mechanism to do comments does work. I trackbacked the site on April 8 http://www.blinne.org/blog/2005/04/id_cannot_take_.html. I have comments on and I got an interesting discussion and I didn’t censor the contrary view either.

I happen to believe both in design and Darwinism. The recent post about Privileged Planet not being anti-Biological Evolution rings hollow. I am involved with the ASA and a number of us believe both in design (because we are Christians) and Biological Evolution (because we are scientists). Check out the discussion list for the ASA: http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/.

Recently on that discussion list, Denyse O’Leary wondered why some of us opposed the Discovery Institute. The fact they are an embarrassment to many Evangelical scientists never seems to cross her mind. Since the Discovery Institute will not allow other Christians who believe in design but who are not anti-Evolution to come to the party, e.g. ASA member Keith Miller who opposed DI in Kansas, I don’t believe them when they claim that Privileged Planet is merely alternative cosmology. Iowa State University had a debate about Privileged Planet last fall. Even though Gonzales is on the ISU faculty, it didn’t appear that he defended his work. Gonzales is an ASA member but there was also a critical paper of it was presented at the 2003 Annual Conference of the ASA. The ASA encourages debate amongst its members. But, this is not the kind of debate the DI wants. They just want to show the film to a friendly audience and have PR blogs with no comments. They want no debate at all, not even friendly debate from Evangelical scientists.

Comment #32803

Posted by bill on May 30, 2005 1:32 PM (e)

Josh,

The correct expression is to “have one’s knickers in a twist.”

As Bill said to Bea in Kill Bill 2, I guess I overreacted.

I was upset that my Trilobyte died, but I’m getting over it.

Comment #32815

Posted by Stuart Weinstein on May 30, 2005 3:35 PM (e)

Ac writes “This is a rather stupid criticism, Mr. Cartwright. How does not enabling comments imply disinterest “in running an actual blog” ? Are Glenn Reynolds and Josh Marshall not running “actual blogs,” then? If that’s the case you’d better inform them forthwith - their millions of regular readers (hundreds of times your own, by the way) have been laboring under the delusion that they were reading real blogs”

Perhaps the point just zoomed past Ac at Mach 5.

The issue is not enabling comments. THe issue is censoring comments that disagree with the blog creator’s preconceived notions.

If you want to have a blog where people can’t comment, swell. Not much of a blog IMHO.

But if you do allow comments you shouldn’t be censoring them with respect to point of view.

Comment #32837

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on May 30, 2005 8:55 PM (e)

Rich wrote:

They [DI] want no debate at all, not even friendly debate from Evangelical scientists.

Especially not that debate! They want the public to think they represent religion in general, but they know they are pushing God of the Gaps and want to use the schools to convert everyone to that bad theology. Furthermore, Rich, people like you are “Worse than atheists, because they hide their naturalism under a veneer of religion” {Philip Johnson). And ASA members just might this cat out of the bag: it makes no sense to believe in the Creator and then turn around and disbelieve the creation.

Comment #32838

Posted by Ac on May 30, 2005 9:02 PM (e)

Perhaps the point just zoomed past Ac at Mach 5. The issue is not enabling comments. THe issue is censoring comments that disagree with the blog creator’s preconceived notions. If you want to have a blog where people can’t comment, swell. Not much of a blog IMHO. But if you do allow comments you shouldn’t be censoring them with respect to point of view.

Mr. Weinstein would do well to note the rocketloads that regularly zoom past him before deigning to be of assistance to others.

Cartwright, in his comments to the S&T News, noted that the Dembski site “does not allow discussion on the blog”. As well, the paper reported,

Unlike most blogs, however, Intelligent Design The Future does not let readers respond online to the posts.

I have visited the blog to confirm it, and despite Weinstein’s delusions to the contrary, it certainly appears that comments haven’t been enabled (I have no knowledge of whether this has always been the case, although I suspect it has, from the S&T report as well as the comments here).

My point is simply this: the charge that a blog with disabled comments is not an “actual blog” is patently absurd. It is not the sort of argument one would expect from a fellow whose vocation it is to think rationally and observe carefully. There are countless blogs out there - whose actuality is not in doubt - that have not enabled comments. People do that for many reasons. One may not like them, fair enough, but that has nothing to do with the fact that they exist and that they are in fact blogs.

There are oceans of criticisms to be made of ID believers, but this is not one of them. I never thought the day would come when I’d be defending the likes of Dembski and his ilk, but there you go: even the foolish can be unjustly charged.

Comment #32840

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on May 30, 2005 9:16 PM (e)

AC wrote:

My point is simply this: the charge that a blog with disabled comments is not an “actual blog” is patently absurd.

Literalism on steroids. Yes, we know that, depending on definition, it is a blog. We also know the meaning here: the point is that comments are allowed, then deleted in case of disagreement. This behavior is not illegal, just unbecoming for an intellectual giant. Oh wait, maybe that’s the problem…

btw who is ac? You’re not from Texas are you?

Comment #32843

Posted by Ac on May 30, 2005 10:00 PM (e)

Literalism on steroids. Yes, we know that, depending on definition, it is a blog. We also know the meaning here: the point is that comments are allowed, then deleted in case of disagreement. This behavior is not illegal, just unbecoming for an intellectual giant. Oh wait, maybe that’s the problem …

I posted to disagree with Cartwright’s calling the IDFuture blog not an actual blog simply because comments were not enabled. My understanding is that this blog does not delete comments - it simply doesn’t enable them, period. I do not think there is anything intrinsically wrong with that, and I certainly don’t think that this somehow lessens the quality of his blog (his content does that, single handedly).

On his other blog, Dembski routinely deletes comments purely because he does not agree with them. I was not addressing this behavior: needless to say it is merely another bit of evidence that Dembski isn’t able to defend his positions, and is being dishonest. The sole reason I commented at all on this thread was to express irritation with the superfluous criticism made to the S&T newspaper.

What you call literalism on steroids (nice phrase) I call accuracy - something I’d urge you to cultivate. It would have saved us this exchange.

Comment #32849

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 31, 2005 1:11 AM (e)

Josh Narins wrote:

I didn’t check the others, but BJU’s Creed says “The theistic evolutionist attempts to reconcile Genesis to evolution. But it cannot be done; the two are irreconcilable.”

What has that got to do with ID not being taught at BJU? ID is no friend of theistic evolution, or hadn’t you heard?

Comment #32850

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 31, 2005 1:22 AM (e)

@AC:

I believe stuart was referring to the practices of William Dembski on his blog, actually. Dembski DOES remove comments continually; one could not view his blog as allowing “discussion” even if it does allow comments, simply because any and all detracting comments are removed.

Stuart may have confused your allusion to ID the future site as to that of Dembski.

However, there is really no comparison between the kind of discussion allowed on sites like PT, vs. those who support ID.

This is where the disbelief of the rest of us in your statements come in.

Comment #32851

Posted by Acarm on May 31, 2005 1:41 AM (e)

I logged in an left a very polite comment about some major flaws in Granville Sewell’s chapter about the 2nd law. I did not swear or use an insulting language. Within three hours my comment was deleted. Also my log in name and password are also no longer valid. So much for debating.

Comment #33141

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on June 1, 2005 6:59 PM (e)

AC wrote:

Seriously, of all the things you could say, you had to choose this?

The actual sentament you should be expressing is, “out of all the things I said, did they have to chose this?”

The context missing from the statement is that the no-comment criticism was being applied to IDF because it was a group blog being run for non-personal reasons.

Comment #33151

Posted by steve on June 1, 2005 9:02 PM (e)

Comment #32851

Posted by Acarm on May 31, 2005 01:41 AM (e) (s)

I logged in an left a very polite comment about some major flaws in Granville Sewell’s chapter about the 2nd law. I did not swear or use an insulting language. Within three hours my comment was deleted. Also my log in name and password are also no longer valid. So much for debating.

Potemkin debate.