Censorship at Telic Thoughts

I also posted on Telic Thoughts, in at least one of the same threads as you PvM. So far, they haven't deleted my posts. Should I be worred that they don't find me threatening enough to censor?

Why have they done this? Am I correct in suspecting an ego fight? In my view you have to be an absolute trolling moron to get a ban!

I didn't realise until I looked again that all of your posts were deleted. Bugger! Did you do something naughty? I also noted that a post from "pimothy" was deleted. Oh Well!

What's funny is my responses to you are still there. Heh heh. I must be talkin to myself!

As you may have noticed from Krauze's and Sal's response, my comments are pften too uncomfortable for discussion.

They not only moved my postings but banned my username PvM. When I posted using Pimothy (my alias) it was also quickly banned. Now I get "Error: Wrong username."

Fascinating how ID is so easily threatened by the controversy of their own creation.

As PvM didn't link to my post (not by the time I'm writing this, anyway), let me just briefly explain that we banned him because of his extensive history of using multiple accounts (a.k.a. "sock puppets").

PvM's post also contains two pieces of misinformation. First of all, his comments weren't deleted, but simply moved to a section of the blog called "The Memory Hole". Anyone wondering if it was the potency of PvM's criticism that got him banned are welcome to visit the site and see for themselves.

Second of all, no one is censoring PvM. The fact that he's able to announce his banning here on PT, where it'll be read by way more people than if he'd kept commenting on our puny blog, is enough to reject this claim. PvM is free to set up his soapbox wherever he wants; at Telic Thoughts, we simply reserve the right to keep him off our soapbox.

Krauze,

I notice you've moved PvM's responses to me into the memory hole and my original comments are still there. I wouldn't consider my posts strictly on topic!

Sounds a "wee" bit dodge to me..

Update.

Sorry Krauze. I think I understand your position having now read your post link above.

Krauze:

"Anyone wondering if it was the potency of PvM's criticism that got him banned are welcome to visit the site and see for themselves."

I would, except that by moving them out of context you've made it almost impossible to see what his comments are replying to. Saying his comments were "simply moved" doesn't really cut it when by moving them you took them completely out of context.

As PvM didn't link to my post (not by the time I'm writing this, anyway), let me just briefly explain that we banned him because of his extensive history of using multiple accounts (a.k.a. "sock puppets").

— Krauze

Second of all, no one is censoring PvM. The fact that he's able to announce his banning here on PT, where it'll be read by way more people than if he'd kept commenting on our puny blog, is enough to reject this claim. PvM is free to set up his soapbox wherever he wants; at Telic Thoughts, we simply reserve the right to keep him off our soapbox.

— Krauze

Krauze,

Separate but equal, huh? I'm sure, deep in your own mind (where fear, pride, and envy are given the robes of angels) you are being "terrible fair."
And that smug, twisted "fairness" is everything I have reason to pity and yet struggle against.

# The Panda's Thumb Says: September 4th, 2005 at 4:23 pm Censorship at Telic Thoughts On Telic Thoughts, the administrators seem to have chosen to not only block me from further contributions but they have also deleted my contributions. Fascinating how ID proponents complain about censorship but apparantly do not shy away from censorin... Trackback by The Panda's Thumb --- September 4, 2005 @ 4:23 pm

Nice rewriting of history. I used only one account on Telic namely PvM. When that account stopped working I tried my other account which worked for a short period of time. To suggest that my postings were moved and my username banned for using 'sock puppets' is plain false.

Wildlifer, I had noticed the same irony. But Mike is easily annoyed when people point out to him his flawed logic.

Second of all, no one is censoring PvM. The fact that he's able to announce his banning here on PT, where it'll be read by way more people than if he'd kept commenting on our puny blog, is enough to reject this claim. PvM is free to set up his soapbox wherever he wants; at Telic Thoughts, we simply reserve the right to keep him off our soapbox.

I've documented this sort of nonsense before--it's becoming an epidemic on ID sites, it seems. If you're going to ban someone, you owe them (and your readers) a public explanation, not an Orwellian erase-job.

Teach the controversy! Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy!Teach the controversy! *** Censored ***

Would you have ever expected any less from them. I was banned for showing Mike up as the whining hypocrite he is .. always carrying on about stereotypes, when he's the worst offender in the lot.

PvM is free to set up his soapbox wherever he wants; at Telic Thoughts, we simply reserve the right to keep him off our whinge box.

Pretty funny. Let's see ID is banned from the media, scientific publications etc. etc. One evo gets banned and suddenly it's whaaaa! I've been banned.

Pretty funny. Let's see ID is banned from the media,

scientific publications etc. etc.

One evo gets banned and suddenly it's whaaaa! I've been banned.

PvM,

I'm not part of the administration of Telic Thoughts, I had nothing to do with you getting banned or having your posts moved to the memory hole. I neither lobbied for or against your banning.

My feeling is that IDists aren't that eager to hear from you. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, bro, but that's the way it is. However, we IDists are more than happy to refer people in your fan club to this site where they can get a steady flow of your oracles.

Further, if you don't want me to participate here on your threads, just say so, and you know I'll respect your request. I hope you will afford others that same courtesy.

take care,
Sal

Let's see ID is banned from the media, scientific publications etc. etc.

Further, if you don't want me to participate here on your threads, just say so, and you know I'll respect your request.

Sal, I think your post was well meany and I applaud it, but;

1) Do you feel there is censorship in Telic Thoughts?
2) Should / Can the ID movement engage in a dialogue with the scientific community?
3) What are the ramifications for theism if / when ID gets debunked?

fond regards,
Rich

Sal, I think your post was well meant and I applaud it, but;

1) Do you feel there is censorship in Telic Thoughts?
2) Should / Can the ID movement engage in a dialogue with the scientific community?
3) What are the ramifications for theism if / when ID gets debunked?

fond regards,
Rich

Pretty funny. Let's see ID is banned from the media, scientific publications etc. etc. One evo gets banned and suddenly it's whaaaa! I've been banned.

— aCT

My feeling is that IDists aren't that eager to hear from you. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, bro, but that's the way it is.

— Sal

In general, liberal and science sites permit free expression, while conservative and ID sites do not. That's just a fact.

Even the few conservative sites which permit comments will ban you for minor things, such as when Bainbridge banned me for suggesting that Katrina-relief donations should not go to the catholic parishes in the area, as he was suggesting, but instead, to the Red Cross, on the basis that the Red Cross won't use the money to cover up an international molestation ring. While that comment might have been 'offensive', it was only because it referenced an offensive set of real events.

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on September 4, 2005 07:24 PM (e) (s) I can't wait for Dembski to announce the next evolutionary waterloo next. If I had a shot for every waterloo, I could get very very drunk.

My feeling is that IDists aren't that eager to hear from you.

— Salvador

Remember, Krauze, science is what scientists do. Telic Thoughts continues to illustrate for us just how ID scientists do ID science, especially by helping us see the parallels with other illustrious ID science sites, such as uncommondescent.com and idthefuture.com.

Krauze illustrates that TT thrives off of Wedge-Centrism. So, I don't understand, PvM, why you continue to wish to help ID scientists do their brand of science?

Krause wrote:

As PvM didn't link to my post (not by the time I'm writing this, anyway), let me just briefly explain that we banned him because of his extensive history of using multiple accounts (a.k.a. "sock puppets").

PvM's post also contains two pieces of misinformation. First of all, his comments weren't deleted, but simply moved to a section of the blog called "The Memory Hole". Anyone wondering if it was the potency of PvM's criticism that got him banned are welcome to visit the site and see for themselves.

Second of all, no one is censoring PvM. The fact that he's able to announce his banning here on PT, where it'll be read by way more people than if he'd kept commenting on our puny blog, is enough to reject this claim. PvM is free to set up his soapbox wherever he wants; at Telic Thoughts, we simply reserve the right to keep him off our soapbox.

I am reminded of Charles Durning when I hear pieces of balderdash like the above:

"I love a little sidestep."

Logical idiocy like the above panders only to pleasing those that is censors from. Censorship doesn't complete inability to speak, but only acts of silencing like removal of the host of ALL posts by a person. Now, I am SURE the admins peered through each post and determined them each to be "offtopic" as a justification for removing his nick, user access, and then replacing all his posts with empty space, while retaining any post that responded or copied it. This isn't censorship, indeed, it's an excision. But like all medical procedures of this nature, it only removes a response, not the source, of the doubt, the rejection of ID's fallacy, and exposes the fear of death of the patient, a movement including the above quoted individual.

Since it IS his blog, though, he can do what he wants, but his actions are transparent; the removal only serves as much as locking up a reporter for knowing something the administration didn't like her knowing....

I am 100% evolution, but Krauze sure sounds more reasonable and fairminded than the people replying to him here. Maybe just a matter of style, but I'm swayed by it. Think I'll check out his blog.

Nice troll

— Noumenon

If one is "swayed by matters of style", ID's certainly your oyster.

Noumenon, you know what baby Jesus thinks about telling lies, don't you?

"I wasn't really down with fascism but he had this great side parting and the cutest little moustache..."

I think I'll check out his blog and tell you tat I'm checking out his blog, because even though I am absolutley and positively 100% evolution and not made up by some sad fundie trying to make a point, I can't help but be swayed by fairmindedness and reasonableness such as "reserve the right to keep him off our soapbox."

That's me convinced.

This "Noumenon" figures Krauze "sounds reasonable," and he's absolutely right, as long as you ignore the context and the facts.

C'mon, you "Nou"-b, are you really a "100% evolution" guy?
I have to wonder, since, heck, I couldn't describe myself -- a person who sees the ToE as frighteningly beautiful in its elegance and power, even to a layman like myself -- in such terms. (Though, at the moment, I can describe myself as 100% anti-ID/creationism's political bullshit parade.)
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but if you aren't new here you must know that Creationists very often have proven deceitful in forums, always claiming to be "undecided" or "leaning toward ToE but,.." and then claiming in the most false shill's soprano to be astonished at the IDots solid grasp of the facts, their sense of decorum, their patience, their wit , their sense of fair play .

Anyway, so wha'cha think of the other Creationists, who shall remain unnamed and unread (directly) by me, on this thread? Rather less impressive in their comments and excuses than the average drunken wife-beater, I've decided, and I gather they haven't stopped beating their wives yet. What DO you think?

My feeling is that IDists aren't that eager to hear from you.

we banned him because of his extensive history of using multiple accounts

I used only one account on Telic namely PvM.

PvM, it's no big deal, just think of a pseudonym and keep posting, I for example have FIVE, that's FIVE, I use on this blog, I sometimes even debate myself.

Noumenon, whoever he is, is judging by his name not a full fundie darwinist, he's a Kantian, Noumenon means, in Kant's philosophical system a "Thing in itself". Kant believed purpose could be detected in biological organisms, though how that fit in with his denial of the Telelogical Arguement for the existence of God and with his denial of the possibility of Noumenonal knowledge I don't know.

Noumenon, whoever he is, is judging by his name not a full fundie darwinist, he's a Kantian, Noumenon means, in Kant's philosophical system a "Thing in itself". Kant believed purpose could be detected in biological organisms, though how that fit in with his denial of the Telelogical Arguement for the existence of God and with his denial of the possibility of Noumenonal knowledge I don't know.

Everybody responding to Deepak Chopra on evolution over at HuffingtonPost.com on his evolution comments is now censored. They've become and all hurricane Katrina all the time blog for commenters.

But even Deepak is discouraged from writing more on ID it seems. It was just eating up too much space.

I read some of the Telic stuff.

The guy asked: "If Metaphysical Naturalism (MN) determined that the Earth was 6000 years old, that evolution could not occur and all living things were fitted into discrete, discontinuous groups, and a global flood once covered the Earth, does MN then mean we must explain this all 'without reference to supernatural beings or events?'"

Well, he has a point. It would disprove evolution and MN couldn't explain it. Does that point help his argument? One could also ask "If pigs sprouted wings and started to fly, would that be proof pigs fly?" Well, yes. It would indeed. But pigs don't fly and the Earth is estimated to be something like 4 billion years old, the flood was local and we share a lot of DNA with other animals.

MN would have to say "I don't know" if the Earth was only 6000 years old. Evolution couldn't happen then. You actually have to say "I don't know" a lot on both sides because it's the only honest thing you can say. It's ID that's dishonest.

But, no, MN would not fall back on a non-explanation like "God did it and the Bible is his word." Recall that Thomas Paine didn't need evolution and an old Earth to discredit the Bible in his book "The Age of Reason." However, the Bible would look a little better if the Earth were only 6000 years old. It would still be full of contradictions and flaws even if the Earth were 6000 years old and a flood happened. It would be as much proof of the Bible as finding huge candy canes at the North Poll and flying reindeer would be proof there was a Santa Claus. It makes Santa a little more probable, but not by as much as some would like to think.

In general, liberal and science sites permit free expression, while conservative and ID sites do not. That's just a fact. ... While that comment might have been 'offensive', it was only because it referenced an offensive set of real events.

I am 100% evolution, but Krauze sure sounds more reasonable and fairminded than the people replying to him here. Maybe just a matter of style, but I'm swayed by it. Think I'll check out his blog.

SEF wrote in Comment #46567:

"No, it's not just conservative and ID sites. IIDB is institutionally corrupt in the same way - allowing dishonesty and hypocrisy from its favoured members and making defamatory lies against others but then taking artificial offence at having that dishonesty and hypocrisy being pointed out (including references to the evidence) rather than recognising where the offence really lies. IIDB is institutionally corrupt because it has its rules carefully set up to promote that sort of dishonesty, rather than just having specific honest or dishonest moderators.

SEF,
An example or two would be helpful.

Reed Cartwright,
Do you have comment on this balderdash?

Sincerely,
Paul

PS
SEF,
The BBC had an excellent program Saturday morning about the hurricane, its aftermath, the relief effort, the geological/geographical history of Louisanna, and the stupidity of American's growth for growth's sake policies leading to building on marginal land. You're the only Englishman I can thank for the concern I see England has shown for the sufferers of this disaster.
Thankyou,
Paul

the wad of id comments on ID scientists doing ID science (#46533) and chides PvM "for helping them". I am interested in what that "science" may be since I believe that ID is the laetrile of scientific education; a useless substitute for real scientific education which if not overtly toxic (teach the controversy, what harm can it do?), at minimum wastes students time causing them to fall farther behind those of Americas competing economies. As far as I can tell ID is not a scientific alternative to evolution but is a metaphysical alternative to the scientific method (metodologic materialism, empiricism and objectivism). Evolution is singled out because it is the most hated well-known theory (few people would admit that they dont believe in the atomic structure of matter). But ID as far as I can tell cannot possibly explain the diversity of life on earth without totally infesting all basic sciences with supernatural components from quantum mechanics to general relativity , all of which suffer from the "too complex and too improbable" problem that they attribute to evolution.

An example or two? Me and read the rules there critically for yourself. It looks to me like the site favours sophists (dishonest people who love the argument rather than the truth). They are certainly anti whistle-blowers. PZ, the only overtly honest moderator I noticed there, left (but presumably for his own reasons). NB labels like conservative and liberal don't necessarily mean the same things to US and UK. However, I don't see such a stark contrast between what was being complained about over Telic et al and the way IIDB behaved (including them lying about what they had done) and I wouldn't have thought you would label IIDB conservative or ID/creationist.

Re BBC: I really can't represent all English people. However, it is fairly reasonable to suppose that the UK media is somewhat less under the control of Bush (and his spin machine) than the US media is. Unfortunately, there's still Blair and his spin machine here instead. That's one major advance which the internet and satellite communications do offer against institutional corruption. It's not so easy for the corrupt to control all the information feeds.

Off-topic but: could they rebuild some of New Orleans higher at all, or would any attempted artificial mounds simply subside? The UK has rather a lot of artificial high ground even from pre-historic times. That hasn't stopped the UK government from pushing through planning permission on known stupid sites relatively recently though. Blair and co again.

Maybe Krauze can help you out, dover pro, with the particulars, since I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting a nascent science in the making.

TT is often promoted as the model ID science site (just look at their diverse scientific categories), where advocacy of Wedge-centric subjects (i.e. extra-ID-science subjects) is taboo. TT members know that science is defined by what scientists do. Since TT members think they are doing ID science, I can only conclucde that they think they are ID scientists. It follows then that Krauze is demonstrating for us how ID scientists deal with dissent and criticism of their science.

Remember, dover pro, the Internet is vital to the ID cause in spreading IDism, because, as they whine often, normal channels have been denied to them. We should expect ID scientists to protect the last strongholds of their research on the Internet. After all, if they don't protect their blogs, how else are school children ever going to find out about ID, when teachers tell them that ID is a bad thing?

My feeling is that IDists aren't that eager to hear from you. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, bro, but that's the way it is. However, we IDists are more than happy to refer people in your fan club to this site where they can get a steady flow of your oracles. Further, if you don't want me to participate here on your threads, just say so, and you know I'll respect your request. I hope you will afford others that same courtesy.

Ah, I see that merely commenting here at PT can get one "banned at Telic Thoughts."

After I defended PvM there yesterday, they moved all my comments to the "memory hole," too.

There's an old Chinese proverb: "I can't hear what you're saying; your actions drown out your voice."

Preserving dissenting voices in the difficult-to-get-to, unexplained "memory hold" doesn't change the fact that the ID-friendly bunch at Telic Thoughts is very, very thin-skinned, and no more able to defend intelligent design than any other ID advocate.

One wonders, too, why they chose to be so transparent about naming the memory hole. Haven't they the least bit of shame?

Why, no, they haven't the least bit of shame -- else the would not be ID proponents.
I can't imagine a more shameful bit of pseudo-intellectual posturing in which one might indulge.
They violate very principle of civil discourse, they violate every principle of rationality, they are without shame and without redeeming value.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Comment #46479 Posted by Krauze on September 4, 2005 03:45 PM (e) (s) Second of all, no one is censoring PvM. The fact that he's able to announce his banning here on PT, where it'll be read by way more people than if he'd kept commenting on our puny blog, is enough to reject this claim. PvM is free to set up his soapbox wherever he wants; at Telic Thoughts, we simply reserve the right to keep him off our soapbox.

Comment #46510 Posted by Creationist Troll on September 4, 2005 07:08 PM (e) (s) Pretty funny. Let's see ID is banned from the media, scientific publications etc. etc. One evo gets banned and suddenly it's whaaaa! I've been banned.

Comment #46513 Posted by Salvador T. Cordova on September 4, 2005 07:30 PM (e) (s) My feeling is that IDists aren't that eager to hear from you. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, bro, but that's the way it is. However, we IDists are more than happy to refer people in your fan club to this site where they can get a steady flow of your oracles.

Further, if you don't want me to participate here on your threads, just say so, and you know I'll respect your request. I hope you will afford others that same courtesy.

Off-topic but: could they rebuild some of New Orleans higher at all, or would any attempted artificial mounds simply subside?

— SEF

Comment #46590 Posted by Ed Darrell on September 5, 2005 11:46 AM (e) (s) Ah, I see that merely commenting here at PT can get one "banned at Telic Thoughts."

Comment #46513 Posted by Salvador T. Cordova on September 4, 2005 07:30 PM (e) (s) PvM, My feeling is that IDists aren't that eager to hear from you.

Since the foundations rest on layered peat, NO will continue to sink.

Which comparison of fore-knowledge and technology from science vs religion raises the inevitable question of why the fundamentalist religionists of NO weren't in custom built survival units (eg arks) or out of the place entirely in advance. Their religion doesn't seem to do anything real or useful but merely serves to direct post-hoc excuses.

— SEF

Theology was used to justify the destruction, you mean. By the way, your song "You've Got A Friend" is just awful.

"The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this. And I know I'll hear from them for this, but throwing God...successfully with the help of the federal court system...throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad...I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen." --Jerry Falwell

Censorship, D*mbski style.

Look - he doesn't write in your science Journals, so don't write in his blog, okay?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/306

Diatribe or discussion? I think that's VERY clear.

Keep 'uncommon descent' 100% science free.

Its is noreworth 'crash landings' are also ''uncommon descents'- perhaps a more apt name for his blog?

Theology was used to justify the destruction, you mean. By the way, your song "You've Got A Friend" is just awful.

— steve

One more mote on the aside... The wetlands and bayous south of NO act as a natural breakwater for massive natural storms. This wetland has been receding by about 50 acres a year. It is projected that by 2050, New Orleans will have no wetland protection and will sit directly on the sea. This is a direct result of the human interference along the river. The river used to meander and flood along the floodplain especially in flood conditions. Flood waters bring silt that maintains the wetlands and the breakwater buffer for NO, but the containment of the river required to facilitate human commerce has caused the wetlands to recede. This may sound like environmentalism, but it is simply fact. The wetlands need to be restored in part to protect NO and commerce needs to be more responsible with fragile environments. This is a good lesson for other communities to learn vicariously, but I doubt the significance will be recognized.

I am simply a James Taylor not the James Taylor. And BTW, it's an old, lame and tired joke.

I was kicked off of Dembski's site again. I actually lasted for several monthes. However, it was interesting that he kept the people that I was discussing with.

Here are the main discussions (my ID is sartre):
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/223#comments
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/279#comments
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/278#comments

Even though I may have been a little "hostile", one should note that my reactions were based on the refusal to provide one ounce of evidence for their claims.

It is not that we (at least I am not) upset that we get banned from ID sites. They are right, they pay the bills. However, don't try to blog the site as an intellectual and academic site where it is simply a place to kiss Dembski's ass.

My favorite quote:
"I independently arrived at most of Dembski's conclusions without reading his work. You know the expression "great minds think alike"? Since you have no way of knowing let me assure you now that the expression is true." --DaveScot

So, one of the most ardent proponents of Dembski does not even READ Dembski's work. In fact, he even was shown wrong about Dembski attempting to apply CSI to IC, where Dave continually refuted this claim. He finally conceded after I showed a quote 2 times.

It's funny how Dembski wants to have a site "freedom by association" with people who do not even know his work.

This even occurred with William S. Harris, who was part of the Kansas Trials. Harris, on this website site: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ ,concludes that the designer has a computative mind. An idea that Dembski rejects.

Now, there is no problem with proponents of one idea arguing over the direction of the field. However, Dembski, when I confronted ID for being rationalist in the idea about the mind, he said, "You do not understand ID."

Now, how can I not understand ID and one of the the so-called scientists who Dembski is proud that signed a petition accepting ID, at the same time mind you, understand ID. I may have been wrong about Dembski's version of ID, but to say that I was wrong about ID in the universal sense is absurd. Again, Dembski refuses to be critical against his proponents, which is a good indicator that Dembski does not want to do science. This freedom of association once again shows that Dembski does not care about what is correct, only that his has mindless people supporting him. It is a wonder why they cannot see why others associate ID with creationism and right-wing fanatics.

Theology was used to justify the destruction, you mean.

— steve

PHILADELPHIA - Just days before "Southern Decadence", an annual homosexual celebration attracting tens of thousands of people to the French Quarters section of New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina destroys the city. ... "Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city," stated Repent America director Michael Marcavage. "From 'Girls Gone Wild' to 'Southern Decadence,' New Orleans was a city that had its doors wide open to the public celebration of sin. From the devastation may a city full of righteousness emerge," he continued. New Orleans was also known for its Mardi Gras parties where thousands of drunken men would revel in the streets to exchange plastic jewelry for drunken women to expose their breasts and to engage in other sex acts. This annual event sparked the creation of the "Girls Gone Wild" video series. Furthermore, Louisiana had a total of ten abortion clinics with half of them operating in New Orleans, where countless numbers of children were murdered at the hands of abortionists. Additionally, New Orleans has always been known as one of the "Murder Capitals of the World" with a rate ten times the national average. "We must help and pray for those ravaged by this disaster, but let us not forget that the citizens of New Orleans tolerated and welcomed the wickedness in their city for so long," Marcavage said. "May this act of God cause us all to think about what we tolerate in our city limits, and bring us trembling before the throne of Almighty God," Marcavage concluded.

— RepentAmerican.com

If the above is NOT a parody, it IS another fine example of the extremely poor markmanship of the Xian "God" has been displayed in the possible thousands of deaths and complete destruction of large portions of the ultra-maroon red Xian state of Mississippi. The Xian God sure has trouble seperating those nasty goats (who likey escaped the wrath descibed as delivered unto them) from the God-fearing (and for good reason, given the evidence of His mercy) sheep.

remember.... this is the same "God" that intelligently designed the ovipositors of the female ichneumon wasps.

As someone who actually has been censored and had his academic freedom violated (go here ), I find it more than a little ironic that the evolution diehards at talk.origins and the Panda's Thumb continually moan about my "censoring" them at this blog. When I was hired at Baylor University, that academic appointment came with certain privileges and rights which, in my case, were indeed violated. When it comes to this blog, on the other hand, I pay the bills and have no obligation to anyone. The issue is not "censorship" but "freedom of association." The Internet is a big place and you are free to whine on it, only not here.

The report marks the triumph of intelligent design as a legitimate form of academic inquiry. This is a great day for academic freedom. I'm deeply grateful to President Sloan and Baylor University for making this possible, as well as to the peer review committee for its unqualified affirmation of my own work on intelligent design. The scope of the Center will be expanded to embrace a broader set of conceptual issues at the intersection of science and religion, and the Center will therefore receive a new name to reflect this expanded vision. My work on intelligent design will continue unabated. Dogmatic opponents of design who demanded the Center be shut down have met their Waterloo. Baylor University is to be commended for remaining strong in the face of intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression.

Chairman of the Faculty Senate, Dr. Jay Losey, said that "anyone can look at the review and also at Dembski's e-mail and make a personal judgment for themselves." "However, I will say there is deep, genuine concern on the part of Baylor faculty regarding some of the statements made in the e-mail," Losey said. "Deep, genuine concern."

"The theme of the report emphasized the need for the individuals associated with the center to work in a collegial manner with other members of the Baylor faculty," said Dr. Michael Beaty, director of the Institute for Faith and Learning, which houses the center. "Dr. Dembski's actions after the release of the report compromised his ability to serve as director."

No such lynching occurred; rather, Dembski gambled that his activities were the science he espoused them to be. He was subsequently subjected to peer review and was found wanting. A committee (comprised of faculty in the sciences and humanities) was appointed after a faculty senate vote of no confidence in the activities of the Polanyi Center of which Dembski was one of two members. Their report (http://pr.baylor.edu/pdf/001017polanyi.pdf) recommended that the center be renamed; pointed out the necessity that the research activities of the center by peer reviewed; that it broaden its focus on faith/science matters to more than questions of ID. Finally, the report urged the two members of the center to be collegial in their dealings with other faculty, as befitting their place in an academic community. I call this peer review, because Dembski never understood the embarrassment he caused other academicians at Baylor University. To him, they were not peers to be convinced by his scholarship, but infidels opposing his Crusade for ID. He was, indeed, in a game of "high-stakes gambling and philosophical rumination." He never understood that in a university setting, his was not the only game in town. Dembski's response to the report was a gloating broadside of VICTORY in his war against "naturalism" (aside: still can't figure that word out); his e-mail response became widely distributed (see http://listserv.omni-list.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind00&L=metanews&D=1&O=D&F=PP&S=&P=31540). After reading Dembski's comments, the Baylor University administration concluded that Dembski had not even understood that he had been peer reviewed, and that his peer review had not been nearly as positive as he claimed; hence, given this lack of good judgment, they dismissed him as director of the Polanyi Center (since renamed). (see http://pr.baylor.edu/rel.fcgi?2000.10.19.05). Although I have since left, at that time I was a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Baylor. Several news/magazine articles repeated my description of Dembski's version of ID as "stealth creationism." Then as now many of my colleagues and I fail to see how it is possible to integrate science and religion, and for the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would want to do so. They are separate realms, separate methodologies, separate intellectual worlds. That's my gamble.

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. 2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work. 3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection. 4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal. 5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries. 6. The discoverer has worked in isolation. 7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

Paul Gross evaluated Symptoms of crankhood He quotes from The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science 1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. 2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work. 3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection. 4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal. 5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries. 6. The discoverer has worked in isolation. 7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation. Seems to me, many of these indicators match ID quite accurately.

All these seem to apply to ID except #6. The Wedgies are pretty good at colluding.

PvM, one of the more interesting, and really sad, things about the collapse of the Polanyi Center at Baylor under Dembski's watch was that President Sloan had gone to bat to save Dembski's tail. It was then that Dembski put out the press release scoriating Sloan.

Remember the story of the scorpion and the frog?

I'm not sure the "collusion" of IDers counts as working with others. The Polanyi Center affair rather clearly demonstrates that, when it was time to join the team, Dembski didn't. I think most of the "colleagues" at DI tend to be loners in their fields. There is no core of biological expertise, for example. The philosophers don't collaborate with each other. The creative writer is stuck by himself. No one collaborates with Behe from DI.

Other than those "opinion pieces" put out by the Swift Boat Veterans for Public Relations that feature by-lines of two or more of the DI fellows, is there really any evidence of any serious collaboration?

According to Alexa, PT's rank is below 100,000 while for Telic Thoughts it is well above 4 millions. However incomplete Alexa's data may be, it is obvious that TT is a site with an insignificant traffic, while PT is one of the most widely read ones. By maintaining the extensive discussion of TT's cencorship here on PT, all what TT's critics achieved was providing TT with a free ad. It must have increased the traffic on PT manyfold. Perhaps the censorship by TT's guys was just a device to invoke critique on PT and thus enhance TT's exposure?

TT's behavior, contemptible as it is, deserves no discussion - let them dream their dreams in the obscurity they deserve.

Sorry, correcting a typo on my preceding comment:
According to Alexa, PT's rank is below 100,000 while for Telic Thoughts it is well above 4 millions. However incomplete Alexa's data may be, it is obvious that TT is a site with an insignificant traffic, while PT is one of the most widely read ones. By maintaining the extensive discussion of TT's cencorship here on PT, all what TT's critics achieved was providing TT with a free ad. It must have increased the traffic on TT manyfold. Perhaps the censorship by TT's guys was just a device to invoke critique on PT and thus enhance TT's exposure?

TT's behavior, contemptible as it is, deserves no discussion - let them dream their dreams in the obscurity they deserve.

I'm not sure the "collusion" of IDers counts as working with others. The Polanyi Center affair rather clearly demonstrates that, when it was time to join the team, Dembski didn't. I think most of the "colleagues" at DI tend to be loners in their fields. There is no core of biological expertise, for example. The philosophers don't collaborate with each other. The creative writer is stuck by himself. No one collaborates with Behe from DI.

I agree that they are independent, but who wouldn't be that would perpetrate scams like they do? Would you want to associate with guys like that? They do collude for the simple fact that they all seemed to agree that Wells' bogus scientific creationist obfuscationist bull pucky was the way to go. It turned out to be the only "science" that they could come up with and it turned out to be the same junk that the scientific creationist were spouting off about 20 years ago. There had to be collusion to do this because they spent their formative years trying to deny any connection to scientific creationists, but they ended up using the same old tactics. They just couldn't mention ID or creationism with a straight face so it seems pointless. Did lightning strike all of them and make them revert to creationist arguments without being able to mention creationism? They all had to agree to just use ID as a smoke screen to make it look like the replacement scam was legit. You just have to look at the Wedge document and look at the Ohio lesson plan and ask yourself how does this further the Wedgie goals? It only can if they depend on the dishonesty of incompetence of teachers and administrators to mess up and teach what they know can't be taught honestly.

But dishonesty or incompetence aside, how does soembody teach something that doesn't say anything beyond a one paragraph blurb describing their "notion"?

Oh well.

Henry