(Sorry, Patrick, for stealing your meme.)

Let me begin with a little history.

My interest in “Intelligent Design” was first piqued by a chance encounter with someone in a completely unrelated discussion forum in 2005, almost exactly 10 years ago,  which led me to the Pandas Thumb  website. On reading a comment there by Sal Cordova, I followed a link and found myself at the Uncommon Descent website, then owned and run by Bill Dembski.  In my naïvety,  I registered and attempted to post an initial comment, asking for some clarification on what “Intelligent Design” was (this was mid 2005, before Dover). I was puzzled that my comment never appeared and my registration was scrambled. I made several more attempts to register before coming to the conclusion that this was not just a glitch.

Thus began my love-hate relationship with UD moderators. I have had spells of reasonable to and fro as Renard and been invited back under my own name by then-moderator, Dave Springer, I think, twice. Fast forward to an “amnesty” declared by current owner, Barry Arrington. I only need to say that for me, as  for the majority of those who took up Barry’s offer, the amnesty was short-lived. Unable to to resist the siren call of the sock-puppet, I armed myself with VPN software and a new persona, Aurelio Smith.

One thing that seemed bizarre to me at Uncommon Descent was the lack of any development in “Intelligent Design” ideas and the lack of discussion about ID at the only remaining site where critics could have some dialogue with ID enthusiasts. So a regular point in my comments was to ask where was there any progress in ID and why was no-one interested in discussing or developing such ideas.

One issue that struck me was that a post at Pandas Thumb by Joe Felsenstein and Tom English had gone virtually unnoticed at Uncommon Descent and the recent papers by Dembski, Ewert and Marks had raised a similar level of interest (i e none). On my mentioning the fact that “active information” had received no attention in a thread at UD, Jonathan Bartlett, an author at Uncommon Descent, offered me (as Aurelio Smith) a guest post on the subject.

Well, I am no mathematician and I did not seriously think this would happen but I thought the opportunity was worth taking.  I did a fair amount of background reading and received helpful advice while preparing my post from several people, notably Joe and Tom. I forwarded a draft to Jon Bartlett, asking him if there was anything he objected to as I didn’t want to invest too much more time without being sure the post  was going to be acceptable. I also “outed” myself to Jon so that he was aware that Aurelio Smith was really Alan Fox.  This did not worry him at all! Unfortunately, Jon received the link to the draft but the covering email ended up in spam and he published it together with the messy list of references which I hadn’t intended for publication. No matter, all turned out well.  🙂

Should I be miffed that Aurelio Smith  invested a fair amount of time and effort into comments that have now disappeared without trace?  I’m actually feeling quite sorry for Barry Arrington. Defending the indefensible is a hard job, even for someone who had the necessary skills.

However, I’d like to make a suggestion that may help Barry come to his senses. How can anyone contemplate going to the trouble of composing (maybe researching) and publishing a comment at Uncommon Descent without being reasonably confident that that comment will be respected, not edited or deleted, and maybe your complete contributions evaporated at the push of a button? I think UD needs a little input from critics to spice up life there. I think if all critics agreed to withhold further participation until Barry agrees to behave responsibly and fairly in matters of moderation, we could effect a change. So, let’s all please try a boycott and let’s all spread the word to any ID critics we know that might post at UD and might not see this post.

On moderation, my views have changed a little. I started a blog back in 2006 as a venue to encourage dialogue across the science/religion divide. I thought moderation was anathema and a bar to free communication.  Lizzie has won me over.  Allowing a plurality of view does involve limits and respect for the person with whom you disagree. I think she does an incredible job in leading and encouraging open and honest dialogue. I wonder what she will think about boycotting Barry?