The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Science & Theology News

Posted 28 May 2005 by Reed A. Cartwright

↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/science-theolog.html

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 blogs 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?

77 Comments

steve · 28 May 2005

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.

Anonymous · 28 May 2005

Jay Richards went on to say, "By 'vitriolic,' of course, I mean 'critical.'"

Albion · 28 May 2005

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.

bill · 28 May 2005

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?

Ruthless · 28 May 2005

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.

Josh Narins · 28 May 2005

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

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

Ruthless · 28 May 2005

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."

bill · 28 May 2005

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.

Don S · 28 May 2005

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

And he probably wishes he had not enabled that feature. I'm sure that Dembski himself had a lot to do with the decision to disallow comments on ID The Future, because he likely spends an enormous amount of time deleting comments on his own blog. If he were to say it's because the comments are "vitriolic" he is lying, plain and simple. I don't doubt that a few are but he deletes comments that even slightly detract from his point or correct a detail, even if they're done politely. 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. Bill in comment 32645 figures maybe he was deleted over his moniker "Trilobyte". No, it's really plain that Dembski is just dumping all but his yes-men. 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". Anyway, mine was a fairly innocuous and polite correction on his article about the Scopes trial. I pointed out the details that he had gotten wrong regarding the throwing out of evidence and about the closing arguments of the lawyers. Nothing acerbic (but it did directly state that his "little known" facts were wrong - so it sure wasn't "boring" either). I would think he might appreciate that actual facts of the matter since he created a whole post on it. My comment was deleted in less than 12 hours. Hey, "intellectual dishonesty" is "intellectual dishonesty" regardless of how it manifests itself. He doesn't have to restrict himself to quote mining and obfuscation. I would suggest that if you want to leave a comment at Dembski's, take a screen shot of it (quickly), watch it dissappear, and then hold your copy for the next time he says he only deletes nasty comments or "boring" discourse.

Albion · 28 May 2005

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.

Steve · 28 May 2005

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.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 28 May 2005

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

AndyS · 29 May 2005

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.

Stuart Weinstein · 29 May 2005

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.

a maine yankee · 29 May 2005

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.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 29 May 2005

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

Lurker · 29 May 2005

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?

Kay · 29 May 2005

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.

Bemused Troll · 29 May 2005

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.

Les Lane · 29 May 2005

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.

Darwinoctonus · 29 May 2005

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??

cleek · 29 May 2005

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.

Kay · 29 May 2005

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.

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 29 May 2005

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

— foot-shooting troll
"actually engage in research" - that reminds me, can you point out any actual IDC research?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 29 May 2005

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).

That would be about the ONLY thing you could accept ID on, given the simple fact that IDers offer no testible scientific data whatsoever on ID's behalf.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 29 May 2005

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??

He shouldn't. We're all out to get him. He should cower in his cloister and never venture again into the light of day. So much for that "Lion of the Lord" thing. More like a "Pussy".

Pastor Bentonit · 29 May 2005

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

Richard · 29 May 2005

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.

Pastor Bentonit · 29 May 2005

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!

Malkuth · 29 May 2005

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.

— Bemused Troll
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.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 29 May 2005

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??

— William A. Dembski
Well, so much for improving the level of discourse.

SEF · 29 May 2005

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)?

Reed A. Cartwright · 29 May 2005

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).

— Bemused Troll from Plano, Texas
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?

bill · 29 May 2005

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.

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 29 May 2005

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.

Russell · 29 May 2005

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
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?

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 29 May 2005

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

Steve · 29 May 2005

...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.

roger Tang · 29 May 2005

"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?

Lee J Rickard · 29 May 2005

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?

Hyperion · 29 May 2005

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.

Hyperion · 29 May 2005

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.

Hyperion · 29 May 2005

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.

Hyperion · 29 May 2005

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

steve · 29 May 2005

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)

Brian · 30 May 2005

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).

Don S · 30 May 2005

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)?

— SEF
Trifurcation Alert :-)

steve · 30 May 2005

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.

steve · 30 May 2005

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.

Sir_Toejam · 30 May 2005

"Dumpski."

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

:p

Alan · 30 May 2005

Not true Dr D deletes all unfavourable comments.

See

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

Alan · 30 May 2005

Not true Dr D deletes all unfavourable comments.

See

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

SEF · 30 May 2005

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

Rupert Goodwins · 30 May 2005

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

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 30 May 2005

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

— Brian
Did you thank him?

Brian · 30 May 2005

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

Ac · 30 May 2005

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?

Ac · 30 May 2005

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?

Ac · 30 May 2005

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

Unstable Isotope · 30 May 2005

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.

Brian · 30 May 2005

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

Arden Chatfield · 30 May 2005

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.

Josh Narins · 30 May 2005

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?

Josh Narins · 30 May 2005

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."

Arden Chatfield · 30 May 2005

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.

Rich · 30 May 2005

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.

bill · 30 May 2005

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.

Stuart Weinstein · 30 May 2005

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.

Pete Dunkelberg · 30 May 2005

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

— Rich
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.

Ac · 30 May 2005

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.

Pete Dunkelberg · 30 May 2005

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

— AC
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?

Ac · 30 May 2005

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.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 31 May 2005

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."

— Josh Narins
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?

Sir_Toejam · 31 May 2005

@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.

Acarm · 31 May 2005

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.

Reed A. Cartwright · 1 June 2005

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

— AC
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.

steve · 1 June 2005

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.