Welcome to my UD friends….

I’m banned from UD as of today, so if you’d need a response to any of your UD posts, do feel free to repeat them here :)

And apologies to those I’ve ignored here. I only seem to be able to obsess about one site at a time, so back to obsessing about this one.

Lots of things to write about, I think, including a Mind & Brain thread that I’ve been mulling over for some time.

But for now, welcome to the banned and the unbanned from UD!

62 thoughts on “Welcome to my UD friends….

  1. I sometimes frighten myself with my prescience :)

    Was your sojourn at UD a worthwhile experience? Did it live up – or down – to your expectations?

  2. :-)

    I must say that you have a remarkable amount of stamina for swimming in such an intellectual vacuum as UD. There were a couple of times I was tempted to support you and to post some questions for those kairosfocus and BornAgain77 characters, but I resisted the urge.

    On reflection, I could not bring myself to lob a nuclear bomb into such a pristine intellectual wilderness and destroy the natural behaviors of the denizens there. Where else can one study such an undisturbed (or is it disturbed?) intellectual wilderness full of such “quaint” creatures? Much better to be able to observe these creatures in their native habitat without making them self-aware.

    But you provided some very interesting perturbations to that environment that brought out just how fragile their survival would be if their environment were to experience a huge jolt. Evidently their banning of you is an indication of their own recognition of that fact; and that would be about the most advanced sort of thinking one would expect of the flora over at UD.

  3. I’m actually surprised that you lasted as long as you did, given how hard hitting you have been.

    It looks as if there were lots of bannings today.

  4. Do you know the official rationalisation for banning you? What was the “last drop”?

    I got myself banned as well, and my last two comments were deleted.

  5. I survived so far, but it’ll be a while before I post there, if ever. I was pulling a 24 hour shift at work and missed the fracas.

    But I knew it was on its way when the topics shifted from evolution to culture wars.

  6. i’ve followed your posts since the first time you were banned at UD in the DaveScot days. Are you, in fact, a saint? I can’t believe the amount of invective you have put up with over the years and how you are always so polite and level headed. I’ve noticed over the last month or so at UD the number of non-ID posters has been going up and almost drowning out the pro-id people … perhaps this was just their way of cleaning house and trying to get back to the good ol’ days when only those agreeing with their position were allowed.

  7. I was led to the UD “What do Scientists Really Do” by a Facebook link from a friend. My comment, which was moderated and never saw the light of day, was as follows:

    So what is Barry Arrington actually saying?

    In this instance Arrington seems to want to criticize scientists. What appears to be the case, however, is that he is confused about difference between the nature of science and the nature of the human will. Granted, the quote from Dr Liddle’s post appears to make the assumption that scientists do science, but to then make the suggestion, as Arrington seems to, that the scientific community should not debate and discuss new observations and theories as they come to light seems to me to be a rather naive point of view.

    It appears that we simply have another instance where the writer of an article has not critically thought through the implications of their generalizations. (Arrington’s argument concerning Newton – Einstein vs the scientific establishment applies just as strongly to Galileo vs the religious establishment. )

    After going back and rereading all the comments in that thread I have come to the conclussion that it is a troll thread. But it really is disgusting behaviour to ban someone when the original post quotes them.

  8. My method is to ignore the culture war threads and walk away from insults.

    I have a limited understanding of biology and math, but enough to see glaring departures from rationality. I have the advantage of not caring if I win and not being afraid of being wrong.

    So I took a stance that is somewhat extreme, just to see if they had a response. For anyone who missed it, I argued that if evolution is impossible, design is also impossible. It’s not an argument I would die defending, but I think it exposes the isolated islands of function argument as something not well thought out.

  9. I have to admit that I did. After 40+ years of studying ID/creationist mindlessness, I have developed some ability to control the gag reflex. But learning about their fundamental misconceptions and misrepresentations has been useful.

  10. FTFKDad,

    I once plodded through a couple of BA77′s posts, following up all the links, just to see if there was anything there. Much of it was references to his own writings, Biblical stories, YouTube videos and bizarrely unrelated music videos. Where he linked to research papers, they either simply didn’t show what he claimed they did or it was highly unlikely that the authors would have agreed with the spin he put on the findings. That was enough to satisfy me that it wasn’t worth the effort so I gave up.

  11. I’m actually not sure why I was banned – whether it was because I’d finally made too many critical posts, or whether it was something specific (or somethings specific) I said in the thread about DrREC.

    But it is true that there have been an increasing number of ID-critical posters at UD recently, and I was impressed that so much criticism was tolerated. And actually, a few really enjoyable conversations. There are certainly people I will miss, and hope they will drop by here.

    But UD had definitely moved a long way from the days when I was first banned, and perhaps yesterday’s crop of critical posts made Barry aware of just how far it had come. Which is a shame.

    Although what has been interesting has been the proportion of UD posts that have been simply about religion. I definitely got the impression that what scares- or angers – most IDers is not evolutionary theory (why would that scare anyone? It’s no problem for religion) but “materialism”: The idea that we do not have an immaterial essence in addition to our material existtence, and that there is no ultimate (whatever that means) reason to be good.

    It seems to me to be based on a fallacioius understanding of “reductionism”. Which is at least partially the fault of the “reductionists”.

    Ah well. For another post maybe.

  12. Liz,

    I enjoyed your writing at UD. Your stamina, and ability to focus, were remarkable. In the time it would take me to compose one or two posts within my comfort zone (biochemistry, mostly!), you managed to spin a dozen plates across the full gamut of the ID-enthusiast’s pet topics: evolution, nasty scientists, genocide, eugenics, social disintegration, nasty scientists, how can anyone be an atheist, consciousness, morality, Design, nasty scientists, why can’t I get my stuff published and many more. All without rising to the bait.

    I didn’t realise you’d been banned before. How come they let you back?

    Cheers!

    Allan

  13. Well, to be honest, I just tried to post and found I could. However, I’d forgotten that I’d originally posted as “Febble”, so I guess the new username got through the filter! Although it wasn’t a deliberate sock, and I’d given my real name in my original posts (that’s why I’d forgotten I’d signed in as “Febble”) so people quickly cottoned on to the fact that I was the same person, which I was happy to confirm. But they let me stay,

    So I figured there was a more tolerant regime at UD, which indeed there was, until yesterday. And I think Barry was probably more worried by criticism of his handling of the DrREC affair (and indeed, by DrREC’s insult) than by criticism of ID, but I could be wrong. Site admins don’t enjoy having their moderation decisions queried! For good reason, actually. Internet drama is addictive but terribly boring.

    I’ve come to the conclusion that the only way to avoid internet drama is simply not to ban people, but simply move stuff that’s getting in the way somewhere else. It’s not foolproof, but at least it means that people know they will be heard, and that seems to me important to real conversation.

    I will ban illegal stuff here, and spammers, but I won’t ban for anything else.

  14. Dr. Liddle I believe you are based in the UK so you would not understand why evolutionary theory would scare anyone … but it absolutely does (in the US). The “theological” argument I believe goes something like: If evolution is true then there is no adam and eve. No adam and eve no fall. No fall no original sin. No sin no need for salvation. No need for salvation, no need for …

    You may also not be aware (but you probably are) that barry arrington is a lawyer based in denver who had some connection to the columbine massacre (he may have represented some parents of the deceased). I believe he feels strongly that the perpetrators had an ‘evolutionary mindset’ (survival of the fittest) and that that contributed directly to the massacre, so in his mind evolution has to be defeated or the end result is nihilism in every kid in america.

    It’s still a huge shame they have banned so many voices of reason and intelligence. I used to pretty much skip over ever post apart from yours, petrushka’s (what ever happened to Nakashima?) and many others who I see are posting here … i’ve learned an awful lot from all of you, so thank you all!

  15. I remember the first time you got banned … you were in the middle of doing one of the best explanations of how evolution works that I was really interested in and following closely … in fact, I think the explanation was so clear and lucid that is what scared Mr. DaveScot who then felt compelled to ban you! Would have loved to hear the rest of your explanation!

  16. Elizabeth:

    So I figured there was a more tolerant regime at UD, which indeed there was, until yesterday. And I think Barry was probably more worried by criticism of his handling of the DrREC affair (and indeed, by DrREC’s insult) than by criticism of ID, but I could be wrong.

    I was also impressed at how much more open to challenge and dialog UD had become, as reflected in tolerance of your contributions (and others’). Banninnations were becoming downright rare, as evidenced by the drift, for the first time, of the Blogczar thread off the first page of AtBC. That event was, in fact, somewhat of a victory for UD, as its moderation history and the associated hypocrisy was certainly a great embarrassment for them, probably the characteristic for which it was most widely known.

    That’s all undone now.

    IMHO, Barry’s reaction yesterday was largely emotional, a mix of anger and then embarrassment, not calculation. DrRec’s comment pissed him off, and he became further enraged after being called on his own actions, and embarrassed by the obvious absence of anything resembling an underlying moderation principle. Gil, in effect, set him up for this dilemma by posting his “mentally ill, or perhaps a drug addict” comment, which drew no reaction, and which Barry simply could not bring himself to address. Rather than reflect on same and climb down a bit, he angrily banned those who pointed to that flat fact. The bannings that followed, including yours, were driven by something approaching purple-faced rage.

    I rather think it likely that he regrets some of his own behavior in what transpired yesterday.

  17. Reciprocating Bill,

    That’s possible. At any rate, his post count will go down :oops:
    And he can’t rely on me finding a sock, because I don’t do socks. Even when I post as Febble, I always post as me. The only reason I use a username is because I’d rather that google didn’t bring up a host of forum posts if someone enters my name!

    But I’m not condemning Barry, because that would be hypocritical, as I’ve always maintained that one of the best systems for discussion boards is benevolent tyranny. Oligarchies are usually a disaster. I’d rather a site owner wielded an arbitrary hatchet, than have a committee sit in judgement.

    Not that I’m intending to wield any hatchets here, but I will wield an arbitrary dustpan and brush. And unlike Barry, I’m actually less likely to move personal attacks on myself than on anyone else, for the simple reason that I know that I don’t mind.

  18. Hey Joe! Welcome!

    You can be skeptical about anything you like here. Evolution, if you want :)

    Make yourself at home!

    And yes, in principle everyone should be skeptical about their own position, but sometimes it’s easier if someone else helps to pick at the holes :)

  19. Thanks Elizabeth- My point is if evos lent their skepticism to their position they most likely wouldn’t be evos.

    Oh and we can’t pick at the holes if the entire position is a hole, as is the case with the ToE.

  20. Joe G,

    Interesting comment. So you would be an even more extreme skeptic, than, say, a Behe?. If “the entire position is a hole”, would you be skeptical that even “micro-evolution” does not happen?

  21. Joe G:
    Thanks Elizabeth- My point is if evos lent their skepticism to their position they most likely wouldn’t be evos.

    Well, obviously, I understand that that is your view. My view is the exact mirror image: if you lent skepticism to your position, you would be an evo :)

    But a point that I find myself making repeatedly on this site is that one problem in the whole ID:evo debate is that both sides seem equally convinced that their own view is obviously right, and that it is only wilful blindness/ignorance/vested interest in an ahborrent worldview that stops the other seeing the Truth.

    So it seems to me that actually neither side can be making their case very persuasively. The reason I set up this site was as hopefully neutral ground in which we can try to find out just why the other side believes what they do, and where the core differences really lie. Because it isn’t always obvious. In fact I don’t think that is obvious at all!

    Oh and we can’t pick at the holes if the entire position is a hole, as is the case with the ToE.

    Well, obviously I disagree :)

    But I do think that there is a huge straw man lurking, and “evos” are at least partly involved in its manufacture: there is no single “ToE” ; it’s a work in progress, and the fact that much of it is supported by evidence (yes, it is) doesn’t mean that we know it’s true. There isn’t even a definitive “it” to be true.

    And the straw hat on this straw man is the idea that the ToE includes the claim that life was not designed. It doesn’t. It can’t. Science can’t do that. That’s because ID is unfalsifiable.

  22. FTFKDad:
    I remember the first time you got banned … you were in the middle of doing one of the best explanations of how evolution works that I was really interested in and following closely … in fact, I think the explanation was so clear and lucid that is what scared Mr. DaveScot who then felt compelled to ban you! Would have loved to hear the rest of your explanation!

    heh.

    Yeah, I will try. I’ve had a half post half written for a while now. This bannination is going to be good for me :)

  23. Joe G:
    “The Skeptical Zone”?

    What are you guys skeptical about?

    Do you apply your skepticism to your position?

    I can’t speak for the others but I know I have.

    I was raised as a Protestant Christian. Until my mid-teens I believed in God and Scripture without question. But I was also curious about how the world worked and what science was telling us about it. Slowly, over time, I became skeptical about the existence of the God had been told about and began noticing all the inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible. So, in terms of epistemology, I am now agnostic, although for all practical purposes I am an atheist.

    Although I am not a scientist my interest in evolution was brought into sharp focus by reading books by Richard Dawkins. His emphasis on adaptive selection was very persuasive so, to begin with, I was sort of a panadaptationist. Again, as time has gone by and I’ve learned more about other approaches and processes in evolutionary biology I’ve become more of a pluralist. Selection or adaptation do occur but they are far from being the only thing going on.

    Now, what about you? We know you’re skeptical about evolution in particular and naturalistic science in general but do you have any questions or doubts about what Dembski or Behe or Wells or any of the other ID proponents have put forward?

  24. Elizabeth: I’m actually not sure why I was banned

    I suspect it was because you dared to question Barry Arrington’s ethics in your comment about outing DrRec.

    It is amusing that in a thread about appeals to authority – presumably Arrington’s point is that one should challenge authority – it looks as if Arrington will not tolerate any questioning of his own authority.

  25. Seversky: I can’t speak for the others but I know I have.

    I was raised as a Protestant Christian.Until my mid-teens I believed in God and Scripture without question.But I was also curious about how the world worked and what science was telling us about it.Slowly, over time, I became skeptical about the existence of the Godhad been told about and began noticing all the inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible.So, in terms of epistemology, I am now agnostic, although for all practical purposes I am an atheist.

    Although I am not a scientist my interest in evolution was brought into sharp focus by reading books by Richard Dawkins.His emphasis on adaptive selection was very persuasive so, to begin with, I was sort of a panadaptationist.Again, as time has gone by and I’ve learned more about other approaches and processes in evolutionary biology I’ve become more of a pluralist.Selection or adaptation do occur but they are far from being the only thing going on.

    Now, what about you?We know you’re skeptical about evolution in particular and naturalistic science in general but do you have any questions or doubts about what Dembski or Behe or Wells or any of the other ID proponents have put forward?

    I was an evolutionist looking for the evidence to prove my creationists parents wrong.

    And yes I question Dembski, Behe et al. However given the evidence and the fact there is only one reality behind our existence, the design inference is the one that is supported.

  26. I was an evolutionist until I started looking more closely at the evidence.

    If you guys had teh evidence there wouldn’t be any ID as the way through the design inference is through your position- Newton’s First rule and all.

    And the ToE does include the claim that life was not designed- darwin didn’t. And ID is falsifiable and we have told you how to falsify it.

    Just because you refuse to grasp that is your problem, not ID’s.

  27. Joe G: What are you guys skeptical about?

    I’m skeptical of all assumptions not backed by sufficiently persuasive evidence.

    Do you apply your skepticism to your position?

    Of course. And when I find my position wanting, I look at other possibilities.

  28. Joe G: I was an evolutionist looking for the evidence to prove my creationists parents wrong.

    And yes I question Dembski, Behe et al. However given the evidence and the fact there is only one reality behind our existence, the design inference is the one that is supported.

    Well, I understand the inference that there must be a designer behind the fact that there is a universe at all. What I find odd is the inference that one specific bit of the universe – one specific event, or set of events, must have been specially set up, within that universe, in a different kind of way to the other events. That the non-living realm is explainable in terms of physics, but the living realm can’t be.

    Why that distinction? Why not just infer that God (or some deity) made the universe, with its physical and chemical laws, and that just as galaxies and neutrinos were the intended result of those laws, so was life?

  29. Neil Rickert: I suspect it was because you dared to question Barry Arrington’s ethics in your comment about outing DrRec.

    It is amusing that in a thread about appeals to authority – presumably Arrington’s point is that one should challenge authority – it looks as if Arrington will not tolerate any questioning of his own authority.

    Well, I guess. tbh, I have a little sympathy, having been a forum admin on a forum that tried to run on as non-authoritarian lines as possible. It’s awfully tempting (and arguably sensible) to just moderate by fiat, banning when you think that things are getting out of hand. And boy can things get out of hand on internet forums.

    And it’s true that we critics had been getting braver – more critical, not just of ID, but of the ethical systems apparently approved of by various ID supporters – Divine Command Theory for instance. I was pretty critical of that. So “arrogant prick” was probably the last straw.

    But I’d rather be banned for calling someone an arrogant prick (if it was here I’d probably move the post) than for mounting an fallacious or ignorant argument, which seems to be the rationalisation being discussed right now. Nobody here will be banned for mounting a fallacious or ignorant argument.

    Apart from anything else, I don’t want to find myself having to ban myself :) And, as Joe says, we have to be skeptical of our own arguments as well.

    ETA: although I suspect that the proximate cause of my banning was my protest at DrREC’s outing. I thought that was outrageous, and still do. Sure, a site owner has a right to ban whom s/he wants (or rather doesn’t want), but I think site owners have a strong moral obligation to respect the confidentially of those who posted on the assumption of anonymity. Or at least to warn posters that posting at that site may result in their true identity being publicly posted.

  30. Joe G: I was an evolutionist until I started looking more closely at the evidence.If you guys had teh evidence there wouldn’t be any ID as the way through the design inference is through your position- Newton’s First rule and all.And the ToE does include the claim that life was not designed- darwin didn’t. And ID is falsifiable and we have told you how to falsify it.Just because you refuse to grasp that is your problem, not ID’s.

    Reminds of when Wes Elsberry was referring to Gil Dodgen over at UD – “you seem to have swapped one position of high certainty and low scholarship for another position of high certainty and low scholarship”. Although I think by “low scholarship” he was being pretty generous.

  31. A long time ago, I opened a BA77 link because it had a lecture on quantum entanglement by Prof Alain Aspect, a well known physicist.
    What I found was a grainy, poor quality, partial lecture, into which BA had inserted his own slides, disguised to look like they had came from Prof. Aspect, that had statements completely non-sequiter to Alain’s lecture, most of which were refuted by the actual lecture material.
    I was so disgusted that I sent a link to Prof. Aspect so he would be aware of how he was being misquoted and plagiarized. Last time I checked, it’s still up on Cunningham’s metacafe site. I suspect Prof. Aspect could care less that some backwater creationist had misquoted him. I certainly wouldn’t have lost any sleep if it had been my material. Just not worth it.

  32. Elizabeth,

    Thank you so much for your contributions at UD. Your ability to calmly engage and educate was a joy to observe. I think you are correct that you were banned for calling BarryA’s ethics into question, rather than anything else.
    My sojourn at UD was brief and mundane by comparison, but it too ended abruptly in a mass banning session (Oct 8 2009) when a number of posters asked Barry to justify his libelous attack on Seversky. He does seem amazingly insecure.

    One topic where I would have liked to contribute was the curious view the regulars at UD seem to have about how science is practiced, epitomized by WIlliam J. Murray’s sarcastic comment #7. Like you, I found his sarcastic spiel fairly close to reality. Where does this ‘science as the Evil Empire’ meme come from?

    Many thanks,

    DNA_Jock

    P.S. there is another poster here who, in a freakish coincidence, shares my name.

  33. Sledgehammer,

    Yup; that is pretty much BA77 in a nutshell (case).

    Both BA77 and that kairosfocus character would dump entire truckloads of garbage on people. Kairosfocus (AKA Gordon E. Mullings) has a website of pseudo-scientific arguments he simply copy/pastes in huge quantities in order to “overwhelm” his opponents.

  34. Elizabeth, much admiration for your posts at UD. Sorry that they have decided to be even more of an echo chamber.

    I have always been astonished at how so many of the ID commenters and posters could repeat the mantra that only a Designer could explain nonrandom adaptation. That is the essence of William Dembski’s “Design Inference” argument (and some of his associated arguments). There have been many posts in places like Panda’s Thumb pointing out that this has been thoroughly disproven (natural selection can bring about that adaptation, not just Design). The ID crowd seems to not notice any of these criticisms … even when they say dramatically that no one has ever refuted Dambski’s arguments.

    I had avoided posting on UD, because there were so many agressively distracting commenters that it seemed unlikely that a coherent argument could be pursued there — particular with the sword of Damocles of bannination hanging overhead. You have done remarkably good work there for science. When people realize that you are banned there, there will be a reaction that will not help UD’s cause.

    If you ever want to send a guest post to Panda’s Thumb, email it to me.

  35. Hello Dr. Liddle,

    I’m a frequent visitor, but rare commenter, at UD. I am quite convinced that ID is correct. I’m saying that to give you my perspective, not to start a debate. I have been in online debates before and decided that they are not worth time and stress, so please don’t consider a lack of response to standard criticism as agreement. (I know you won’t, but I suspect many online debaters will).

    I am absolutely dismayed (for lack of a more extreme expression) that you were banned. You are one of the few people on your side (or my side) who made compelling, well thought out arguments. Your integrity is beyond (reasonable) question. If there were more anti-ID people like you, the debate would be much more valuable.

    I should probably say that I don’t consider you anti-ID. I consider you to be pro-truth. I think you’re wrong (sorry to keep saying that, but I don’t want to be misunderstood), but I think you base your beliefs on your interpretation of facts, and not on an agenda.

    In any case, I really hope the U.D. moderators remove the ban. I try to give extra credibility to people who oppose me. Usually that doesn’t mean much, but in your case it does.

    I hope to see you again at UD.

  36. UD Ban list (unofficial) : Drrec, Elizabeth Liddle, junkdnaforlife, Champignon, GC, doveton

    Seems to have been at the whim of Barry A

  37. laRaza14:
    UD Ban list (unofficial) : Drrec, Elizabeth Liddle, junkdnaforlife, Champignon, GC, doveton

    Seems to have been at the whim of Barry A

    Not to forget CGUGrayArea, Bullwinkle, Peter Griffin, and Geoxus,

  38. LOL. In LNC: “Yes or No”, Barry Arrington asks about the law of non-contradiction.

    Earlier this evening, I noticed three comments to that thread. I’m not certain, but I think they were from ba77, Axel and StephenB. Now there are zero comments, and there’s a note been added saying that the first comment is reserved for eigenstate. I guess I would call that changing the rules in the middle of the game.

    Arrington wants an example to the specific question “Can the planet Jupiter exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense?” Well, silly me. Here I had thought that LNC was a law of logic, not a law of physics. And the matter of Schrödinger’s cat should remind us that what applies in logic might not hold up in physics.

  39. nl,

    Thank you for this ni!

    And welcome to TSZ, which I hope can become a venue for exactly the kind of conversation we would both like to have.

    There are many people I really enjoyed discussions with at UD, including (but not restricted to!) vjtorley, gpuccio, CannuckianYankee (who sometimes posts here, and I hope will do again), Scott Andrews, material.infantacy and Bruce David. I do hope they will drop by here from time to time. I had also been hoping to find time to read Genomicus’s threads properly.

    So it’s frustrating to have to abandon those conversations. I’d suggested a while back to a few people that we could adjourn over here, as the pace is so fast over there, but someone pointed out at that that was a bit like poaching, so I stopped suggesting it. But as this is the only option now, I hope they get the memo!

  40. That’s not right- our special place in the universe could have been pre-programmed.

    And it isn’t ID’s fault that living organisms cannot be explained by physics (and chemistry)

  41. Lizzie, I have been amazed for years at your forbearance in the face of provocation. Though I’m slowed a dab now and have to ration my obsessions, I hope to participate here as the spirit (or cussedness) moves me. And as Joe said, anytime you feel like generating a guest post on the Thumb you’re more than welcome.

  42. Reciprocating Bill,

    Barry A body count at 14 and running:

    (ID)

    junkdnaforlife
    prof. FX Gumby (?)
    ben h.

    ~ (ID)

    Drrec
    Elizibeth liddle
    champignon
    eigenstate
    gcugreymarea
    Bullwinkle
    Geoxus
    OgreMk5
    MaxEntropy
    Petrushka
    Rhampton7

  43. William J Murray: [About Barry's LNC bannings] “I wholeheartedly applaud this new rule.”

    Wow!

    I was wrong about William.

  44. Hi Elizabeth,

    Just a quick note to say thanks for hosting some interesting stuff on your blog, and not vetting me (yet!) for my acceptability vis-à-vis the Rules of Right Reason™.

  45. Joe G:
    OK Neil, what is your position and what is its “sufficiently persuasive evidence”?

    That’s asked in the abstract. I’m not sure what is being asked.

    The discussion was about ID. As I see it, ID has failed to make even the most basic steps toward establishing a fledgling science of intelligent design.

  46. Joe G:
    As I see it ID has made more steps to being science than either darwinism or neo-darwinism.

    Joe, would you like to write an OP presenting that case?

    ETA: if you register I can give you posting rights.

  47. I want to see Joe provide the alogrithm that will allow anyone to determine if something is designed or not.
    the specified complexity forumula that ID claims to have but no one has seen would do nicely.

Leave a Reply