Are we in a war?

Barry Arrington, owner of the pro-ID blog, Uncommon Descent is alleged to have written the following in an email to a contributor:

We are in a war. That is not a metaphor. We are fighting a war for the soul of Western Civilization, and we are losing, badly. In the summer of 2015 we find ourselves in a positon very similar to Great Britain’s position 75 years ago in the summer of 1940 – alone, demoralized, and besieged on all sides by a great darkness that constitutes an existential threat to freedom, justice and even rationality itself.

 

In this thread I don’t want to discuss the rights and wrongs of the email itself, nor of whether or not TSZ constitutes a “great darkness”.  Barry is entitled to decide who posts at UD and who does not; it’s his blog.

What interests me is the perception itself, which I suspect is quite widely shared.

Indeed it’s my perception that a lot of people are truly frightened by much that the modern world seems to represent – evolutionary biology, social and economic liberalism, atheism, the decline of religious observance, multi-culturalism, abortion, LGBT issues, the welfare state – and feel that they are somehow part of a coordinated, or at least related attack on values held very dear.  Indeed, that was made explicit in the Wedge Strategy document:

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West’s greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art

The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.

Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.

Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.

Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.

Barry clearly believes (or did back in the summer) that the War is being lost (“and lost badly”).  Here are the reasons why I think he should Stop Worrying And Learn To Love The Bomb Materialists.

  • We are no threat to freedom.  Those of us who call ourselves “atheists” for the most part do not hold the belief that there is no God (or gods), we simply do not hold the belief that there is.  We have no problem if you do.  Indeed, many of us are glad that there are people who find themselves inspired by their beliefs to do much good in the world.  Most of us believe that a pluralistic multicultural society is something to be proud of, and those cultures include yours.
  • We are no threat to justice. Even the most ardent materialist utilitarian is unlikely to have any problem with the idea that people must be held accountable for their actions, and that the role of social and legal justice systems is to ensure that people treat each other fairly.  The fact that some of us do not think that wrongdoers will be punished in the next life does not prevent us from thinking that it is a very good idea to provide major disincentives in this.
  • We are no threat to rationality.  I think this fear arises from the sense that scientists frequently demonstrate that what seems obvious (aka “self-evident”) ain’t necessarily so.  Turns out the earth isn’t flat.  Turns out that “down” points in all kinds of different directions depending on where you are standing.  Turns out there is a speed limit for information.  Turns out that time is relative.  Turns out that reality at quantum level is simply weird. All this, in the past, theists have taken in their stride, albeit with a bit of a lurch.  What I suspect the real threat is that science – neuroscience! – is, in places, appears to be claiming that our powerful sense that in each of us there is a soul-y thing, a homunculus, who is the “I behind the eyes” – isn’t what we think it is.  That some of us are, in effect, denying that we – I – exist, except as “a bag of chemicals”.  That A is not-A.  That I is not-I. My response is that this fear too, is unfounded.  Even if some of us think that there is no immortal (or otherwise) homunculus in the brain directing operations, but rather that the brain is an organ of the body consisting of a vastly complex distributed decision-making system that acts recursively thus generating as a property of the decider the capacity recognise herself as an intentional agent, by analogy to the other similar intentional agents she observse and interacts with, that does not amount to a denial that “I am”.  It is merely an attempt to account for why there should be an I that can say “I am”.

So sleep easy, Barry!  We are not Nazi Germany, nor yet a Great Darkness.  Our ideas are not billowing blackly from Mount Doom.  They are transparent, humane, pluralistic, and provisional.  There is nothing to fear but fear itself.

 

243 thoughts on “Are we in a war?

  1. We are no threat to freedom.
    . . .
    We are no threat to Justice.
    . . .
    We are no threat to Rationality.

    I don’t believe those are the intelligent design creationists’ concerns. We are a threat to their ability to inject their sectarian dogma into public schools. We are a threat to their ability to decide who deserves the benefits of legal marriage. We are a threat to their ability to control women’s reproductive choices.

    I for one intend to continue to be such a threat.

  2. Just a note to say I think this thread was a good idea. The Barry-Sal breakup is one thing. But the content of Barry’s message is another.

  3. Neil Rickert:
    as the inevitable tides of progress roll in.

    What would give you the idea that we are witnessing inevitable tides of progress?

    Maybe we had a local whirlpool here in Canada in a couple of recent elections, but I see mostly the opposite worldwide, or at best random chop. I’m thinking of the politics of Russia, China, Arab countries, Europe, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the US Republican party. Or, economically, rampant inequality and the rebirth of the plutocrats in the developed world.

    (Obviously, I think the state of the US ID movement means very little indeed to the state of the world.)

  4. Or should we say ‘purported’ message. But on something like this, perhaps strangely, I have no reason to distrust that Sal posted what Barry actually wrote to him. At the end of the day, even distorted as they both are by IDist &/or YECist ideology, my view is that they both mean well, even if they express it poorly.

    One first note, Lizzie, is that you should have distinguished the ‘we’ that you personally include yourself in as the ‘non-militant’ or non-New Atheist brand of ‘atheism’. It’s the militant atheists, the anti-theists that Barry is most frightened/worried about.

    And frankly, they (those ‘New Atheist’, militant anti-theists) are not a credible nor generally caring bunch of human beings, certainly not to be trusted. Your site, however, is full of such folks (including one of your admins). That is, unless you really didn’t know that. 😉

  5. “(Obviously, I think the state of the US ID movement means very little indeed to the state of the world.)”

    Nice Canadian understatement! 😉

  6. Richardthughes:
    I wonder if radical Jihadist Islam sees itself in a similar fight?

    I assumed that was the war. An internecine war among various Abrahamist sects.

  7. I don’t think that you can equate Barry’s motivation with that of the other authors at UD. None of them, with the possible exception of Denyse, make any money out of this. And if Denyse makes any, I am willing to bet that it is very little.

    I think that most of the authors, and many of the commenters, are very sincere with what the write. We may believe that they have blinders on, but I am sure that they think the same about us.

    But Barry is different. I am sure that he has very strongly held views. But he runs UD for profit. The more hits he gets, the more ad revenue he gets. And we know that he’s not reinvesting it in web design.

    I think that he feels that one of the authors disagreeing with the others is bad for the bottom line. But, given Barry’s mountain sized ego, you can’t rule out that he banned Sal simply because Sal disagreed with him. I have heard rumours that Barry does this on rare occasions.

  8. we are losing, badly.

    Agree we [conservatives] are losing the number of people that accept our general views. The conservative viewpoint is losing numbers of adherents badly especially among the young.

    We are in a war. That is not a metaphor. We are fighting a war for the soul of Western Civilization

    No we are not in a war. If people want to believe they aren’t made in the image of God, that is there God-give prerogative. No one is absolutely forcing anyone else to be a non-IDist, a non-creationists, a non-theist.

    I would agree to the extent some of the cultural institutions make it difficult for a fair hearing (like being expelled), but if people really want to study ID, creation science, Christianity, whatever, they can make the painful sacrifices to do so.

    If Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, and the Pharisees didn’t believe, then why should we expect we are going to “win” a war of persuasion. People believe what they want to believe. I may not like the state of affairs, but as of right now, the loss of numbers of adherents to our [conservative] viewpoint is of their own free choice and invitation.

    Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.

    The problem is the legacy of the bad side of human nature. The perpetrators of the Spanish Inquisition weren’t materialists. Materialism and Spirituality can be used to justify horrific actions against fellow humans. Curing human nature of its bad side is more nuanced than just undoing materialism.

    In some cases, like living during the Spanish Inquisition or in Saudi Arabia, a “materialist” or utilitarian society would be a much better climate for rationality and justice and even Christianity.

    It may sound funny that I say these things, but I’ve often said, “some of the most vile and militant anti-theists come from Christian homes. Christian homes in this present generation are great atheist and anti-theist factories.” Here is one example:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/pastor-hates-jesus-after-reading-coynes-book/

    If people want to sincerely give ID and creation and Jesus a fair hearing, I’ll try to answer their questions, but each person must make his own search for truth.

    The implicit insinuation is that somehow “we” are failing. Barry of anyone should realize we can say stuff for 10 years at UD, and it will change few minds. We can only reassure those who are already sympathetic that one viewpoint is right.

    Wes Elsberry talked about the “winning propaganda”. It is more nuanced than he is stating it. IDists privately are more confident than ever they are right especially in light of things like ENCODE and Koonin’s invocation of the multiverse solution to OOL. We simultaneously feel we are losing the war of persuasion but not the evidential case against OOL and Darwinian evolution.

    That’s why personally I felt confident criticizing other ID proponents. There is no fear giving up ground on bad arguments (like the 2nd law) will inevitably mean there won’t be better arguments (like the law of large numbers).

    Finally, there is something subtle that observers should note. There is no mention of Jesus Christ or some secret oath that we are pledged to. Barry noticeably doesn’t mention Jesus Christ or the Bible or the Gospels much at UD compared to me. “Self-evident morality” and “principles of right reason” form a serious basis for his conservative views, not mine. It’s may look like a minor point to outsiders, but it is a source of serious disagreement.

  9. Acartia,

    But Barry is different. I am sure that he has very strongly held views. But he runs UD for profit. The more hits he gets, the more ad revenue he gets. And we know that he’s not reinvesting it in web design.

    Sure, more hits = more revenue. But does UD actually turn a profit, once expenses are taken into account? He’s got hosting costs plus whatever he pays Denyse.

    In any case, UD is officially a non-profit, so any financial benefit to Barry would have to come in the form of a salary, if he pays himself one.

    I think Barry runs UD primarily for vanity, not for profit. One clue is at the bottom of every UD page:

    ©Uncommon Descent, Inc., Barry K. Arrington, President

  10. Rich:

    I hope someone has informed Barry. It seems unfair to have this unfold without him.

    He has only himself to blame. I would have informed him by now if I weren’t banned at UD.

  11. keiths:
    Acartia,

    Sure, more hits = more revenue.But does UD actually turn a profit, once expenses are taken into account? He’s got hosting costs plus whatever he pays Denyse.

    In any case, UD is officially a non-profit, so any financial benefit to Barry would have to come in the form of a salary, if he pays himself one.

    I think Barry runs UD primarily for vanity, not for profit.One clue is at the bottom of every UD page:

    Just one point. Not for profit does not mean that it must be run at break even or a loss. I work for a small not for profit (in Canada, so the rules may be different) and we make a “surplus” of $100,000 per year and have over $3,000,000 in the bank. And we are not breaking any rules.

  12. I detect a bit of New- Atheist-bashing here. As a strident, militant anti-theist atheist I have to complain. All the major new atheists, as far as I can tell, are not interested in enforcing atheism or prohibiting religion. They (we) just think it would be better if religion went away. But the means of achieving that are entirely by persuasion, not force. And any attempted influence on government is to enforce secularism, i.e. neutrality of the state, not persecution of religion. I don’t see how anyone could consider that aim vile.

    Also, I do think quite a few atheists (me, for example) are fairly convinced that there is no god rather than just lacking any active belief.

  13. Elizabeth,

    Oh, don’t worry, Lizzie, it’s highly unlikely anyone would ever accuse you of ‘bashing’ anti-theists or ‘New atheists’ on this site because you clearly appear to support them rather than resisting them.

    You give voice to the atheist, to the unbelieving, to the ‘skeptic’, to the morally un-anchored. That’s part of the unspoken mission of your blog, after all, isn’t it? 🙂

    Sure, maybe you don’t come across as anti-theist yourself. But you’ve created the conditions for self-declared “strident, militant anti-theist atheists” like John to gather on your bandwidth. And we understand your already professed apostate allegiance (quasi-Buddhist, quasi-Quaker, smorgasbord ‘religious’, etc.) fondling with atheists, agnostics, skeptics & anti-theists quite well at TAMSZ. This isn’t brain surgery, after all, is it? 😉

  14. Gregory: You give voice to the atheist, to the unbelieving, to the ‘skeptic’, to the morally un-anchored.

    Such dehumanizing would be cruel, if it could be not dismissed as the rambling of a crank.

  15. I’m pretty sure Harshman was referring to TSZ’s resident compulsive atheist-basher, Gregory, rather than you, Lizzie. And I, like Harshman, think that the world would be better off without religion; not because I think religion is 100% isotopically pure Evil, but, rather, because I think that whatever good religion may do in this world, that good is accompanied by more than enough evil to outweigh that good, so that religion’s absence would be a net benefit. I’d like to see religion to go away the same way I’d like to see illiteracy go away, and I’d like to see poverty go away, and yada yada yada.

  16. cubist: And I, like Harshman, think that the world would be better off without religion; not because I think religion is 100% isotopically pure Evil, but, rather, because I think that whatever good religion may do in this world, that good is accompanied by more than enough evil to outweigh that good, so that religion’s absence would be a net benefit. I’d like to see religion to go away the same way I’d like to see illiteracy go away, and I’d like to see poverty go away, and yada yada yada.

    Absolutely.

    And there are some nations which have essentially zero illiteracy. So it can be done, with citizen cooperation, money, a little bit of luck, and without “war” ideology.

    If the world holds together economically and ecologically for another century or two, we’ll see nations which have essentially zero religiosity. And they’ll be so much nicer places to live that even the christian and muslim fanatics will begin to wonder what’s wrong with their own beliefs.

  17. it is a war. I see it as a war.
    To me , however, its a historic, 5000 year, war of Satan and complinent mankind against the true faith and justice and love.
    Since the protestant reformantion, in the Anglo American world, we have prevailed over evil. Just prevailed and often a close run thing.
    Recently we destroyed the communistic world agenda and freed many nations and peoples relative to the evil Soviet union and friends. A glorious victory. A beautiful thing.
    .
    We are under attack by other evil things or wrong things. The list is the list.
    WE shall overcome.
    Truth, love, justice will defeat the others.
    Creationism is a yiny front in the battle but a worthy front. It touches on Christianity, intelligence, freedom of speech/though, law, some poltics and a better world.
    Great Britain is under severe oppresion and Canada is a judge ruled dictaotship with a new government also striving for dictairship. America is greatly threatened by court dictatorship but not government dictatorship because of the superior poltical ideas from its founders.
    YES its a serious invasion and occupation by historic evil forces and erroneous forces. Not just disagreements this time.
    Imposition of will without public consent is invasion of a free people.

  18. Gregory: You give voice to the atheist, to the unbelieving, to the ‘skeptic’, to the morally un-anchored.

    And here you yourself voice exactly the misperception that is fueling views like Barry’s. Not believing in a god or gods is NOT the same as being “morally unanchored”. That is actually my point.

    Now, can you articulate why you think they are? And perhaps we can disabuse you of that misperception.

    Because writing off a large swathe of the population as “morally unanchored” on the grounds that they do not believe in a god or gods, is in my view, not only unsupported by evidence or argument, but dangerous.

    Wars are dangerous things.

  19. *sigh* and now KF is posting his ‘call of duty black ops’ inspired militarization fantasies at UD. He’s clearly read too much Dan Brown.

  20. I don’t wish to see an end to religion. I think the world would do perfectly well without it, but I have no particular wishes in that regard, and no expectation that it would be a remotely practical goal anyway. Atheism is not for everyone; religion offers comfort and community.

    I’d just like to see less bullshit in the world. It’s a modest goal; ‘a bit less’ would do fine!

    Most bullshit is not religious bullshit, and not everything about religion is bullshit. But ID is, most ID criticisms of evolutionary theory are, and so is the pervasive idea that no-religion=’morally unanchored’.

  21. Robert Byers: Great Britain is under severe oppresion [sic]…

    From whom? And by “Great Britain” do you mean the people of Great Britain? Is this a recent phenomenon? Why have I not heard about it from family and friends who still live there? How did you get to this conclusion, Robert? Are you confusing oppression with depression? I have heard there has been severe flooding from depression Desmond recently.

  22. Allan Miller: Most bullshit is not religious bullshit, and not everything about religion is bullshit. But ID is, most ID criticisms of evolutionary theory are, and so is the pervasive idea that no-religion=’morally unanchored’.

    Exactly.

    Therefore there is no war, and it’s time the phony war came to an end.

  23. Neil Rickert: To take just one example, they can’t roll back the Internet.

    But China is trying very hard to use it for its own purposes. Technical progress is different from human progress.

  24. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/can-we-afford-to-be-charitable-to-darwinists/

    And that’s the problem; a lot of us don’t realize we’re in a war, a war where reason, truth, religion and spirituality is under direct assault by the post-modern equivalent of barbarians. They, for the most part, have no compunction about lying, misleading, dissembling, attacking, blacklisting, ridiculing, bullying and marginalizing; more than that, they have no problem using every resource at their means, legal or not, polite or not, reasonable or not, to destroy theism, and in particular Christianity (as wells as conservative/libertarian values in general). They have infiltrated the media, academia and the entertainment industry and use their influence to generate narratives with complete disregard for the truth, and entirely ignore even the most egregious barbarism against those holding beliefs they disagree with.
    ….

    There is no common ground between the universal post-modern acid of materialist Darwinism and virtually any modern theism. There is no common ground between Orwellian statism-as-God and individual libertarianism with freedom of (not “from”) religion. There is only war.
    ….
    the sad fact is, we cannot afford to give them charity, because to give them charity, IMO, is to give aid and comfort to an enemy bent upon our destruction, and the destruction of our way of life.

    I responded in the comment section:

    28

    scordovaSeptember 15, 2013 at 11:04 am

    Give honor to whom honor is due. We should be as charitable to Darwinists as we would be to any citizen.

    Many of my professors and mentors were Darwinists. An ex-girlfriend was a Darwinist, but her being a democrat was more of a disqualifier.

    As far as charity goes, we dispense it independent of one’s level Darwinism, but on other factors.

    If the Darwinists is someone like laser-inventor and Christian Charles Townes, we honor them as they are due. If the Darwinists are Jeffrey Dahmer or Amy Bishop we throw them in jail.

  25. Well, of course there’s an ideological war going on. Ideological wars have been raging throughout recorded history. You can see the current headlines of the war in the media every day, and see the propaganda for and against the various factions throughout the media. Political, legal and social pressures are brought to bear in this war, often ruining lives and livelihoods.

    There are books and other documentation about the history, goals and implementation plans of the various factions involved in the war – from social engineering perspectives like communist/progressives/conservatives/libertarians, to religious/philosophical in nature (Dominionism/Caliphate/IDM/Anti-Theism/Radical Secularism), to highly racial factions (KKK/Black Panthers), etc.

    One might characterize a war as a series of fights or battles pursuing an outcome larger than each individual battle. That is what is going on, and has been going on for ages.

    In any war, you strategically ally yourself with other factions in order to gain a strategic or tactical advantage over a common opponent, like the USA and the Soviet Union in WW2.

    There are many aspects to war, especially in an ideological war, that have more to do with psychology than facts, evidence and logic. This is because persuading the public has more to do with manipulating psychologies than it has to do with critical thinking and reasoning skills. That’s just an unsavory fact of human nature. I mean, in what rational world do educated professionals, including women, join up with ISIS or convert to radical Islam?

    Is asserting what one considers to be truths about allies in the war more important than the goal of the war itself? There were truths about Lincoln, the rights of states to secede and the way the civil war was being portrayed that would have undermined the war effort, so Lincoln had certain members of congress and journalists imprisoned for their outspoken critical views. He didn’t want the war effort undermined from within.

    I may disagree with some of the views my allies have in this conflict, but I do know who my allies are. And, unlike some, I do know how to treat my allies. I don’t have a problem with BA’s tactics or his rebuke of SC. To be fair, I also don’t have a problem, per se, with the bullying/rhetorical tactics of OMagain, RichardHughes, or Hotshoe. Occasionally I call them out on it for my own reasons, but I do realize bullying, rhetoric and propaganda are widely-used and effective tools of war. Calling BA out for “bullying” here is, honestly, worthy of a hearty LOL.

    I guess Gregory considers the IDM as great a threat as atheism/materialism, but it doesn’t appear to me that SC holds this to be true, so I don’t see the wartime value in in taking shots at IDT and IDM. There are many ways SC could contribute without alienating his allies.

  26. John Harshman,

    I detect a bit of New-Atheist-bashing here.

    I concur. There have been a number of unsupported accusations made about Dawkins and Harris in particular.

    As a strident, militant anti-theist atheist I have to complain. All the major new atheists, as far as I can tell, are not interested in enforcing atheism or prohibiting religion. They (we) just think it would be better if religion went away. But the means of achieving that are entirely by persuasion, not force. And any attempted influence on government is to enforce secularism, i.e. neutrality of the state, not persecution of religion. I don’t see how anyone could consider that aim vile.

    Well said.

    Also, I do think quite a few atheists (me, for example) are fairly convinced that there is no god rather than just lacking any active belief.

    I lack belief because I’ve never seen any evidence, or even a definition of a god that wasn’t either internally contradictory or at odds with observed reality. It certainly appears that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent entity is not supported by the available evidence.

  27. Elizabeth,

    Most bullshit is not religious bullshit, and not everything about religion is bullshit. But ID is, most ID criticisms of evolutionary theory are, and so is the pervasive idea that no-religion=’morally unanchored’.

    Exactly.

    Therefore there is no war, and it’s time the phony war came to an end.

    I don’t like the war metaphor either. Unfortunately, as Barry demonstrates, it is the one chosen by those who want their religious dogma to be the law of the land. It’s important to understand their mindset if we want to stop them.

    You are correct that those who oppose theocratic laws don’t need to buy into the same metaphor. It’s probably better that we don’t. The problem is, at least in the U.S., when the god botherers try to take over school districts the resulting political and legal battles discussions tend to feel a lot like a street fight, if not a war.

  28. Patrick can say he doesn’t believe we in are in war of ideas, but he sure does sounds like he is in a war of ideas.

    So Lizzie, when are you going to appoint a UD supporter as one of your admins?

  29. WJM,

    Thank you for responding.

    I’m a right winger Tea Party member.

    I’d agree the Liberal Progressivism is a threat to Western Civilization — look at the welfare economy of Greece. But unfortunately if a democracy like Greece collectively buys in to Socialism, they pay the price. I feel sorry for the good guys though, they will be the casualty of unwise policies adopted by the majority.

    Look at the sad state of the union-controlled public education system and the skyrocketing costs of higher education? That’s liberal policies being driven by a mix of socialism and crony capitalism.

    There are a few right wing atheists. I’d rather be allied with them in terms of economic policy than ID proponents like left wing socialists Bilbo or Joy. Karl Rove (Bush’s campaign manager) is an atheist. Atheist TJ Rodgers is even better. Wouldn’t you prefer their policies over Barack Obama or Bernie Sanders?

    One thing that is different perhaps in my background vs. some other ID proponents. I was bullied a lot in Christian churches. It’s a miracle I came back to Christianity after huge bouts of agnosticism. I found a lot of kinship among atheists and agnostics than I did with the Ken Ham YEC culture.

    I’m a creationist however because I just don’t find OOL theory believable nor do I think most of evolutionary theory is believable, unless one allows evolution to have miracles.

    So I don’t look at atheists and agnostics any more an enemy than the bullies I dealt with in churches. Barry’s backstabbing is more loathesome that some of the garbage I get from my atheist detractors at TSZ.

    My YECism and a simple post reporting on a Lawsuit by Armitage was Barry’s grounds for saying I exercised poor judgment and removing my posting author privileges.

    I could have gone to the YEC community in 2014 and said what a total jerk Arrington was for not standing up for Armitage’s rights and letting me report on it.

    But UD isn’t about following the evidence where it leads and serving the intelligent design community, it’s about following Arrington’s agenda and his thin skin when someone disagrees with him. YECs are part of the ID community, so Arrington saying reporting on Armitage is bad judgement on my part is utter BS. And then after that flimsy excuse 2014, he re-writes history a year later says the real reason I was tossed was not because of my Armitage article but because I’m a Nazi Collaborator.

    If Barry feels besieged on all sides and alone (to use his own words), maybe he should stop pissing over guys that served his weblog faithfully for 10 years and show a little more manners.

    Maybe ID he could get a more productive conversation going if he stopped going out of his way to call his opponents idiots and liars. Does Michael Behe or Stephen Meyer pull that sort of crap? Who has had more influence on the ID culture, tantrum throwers like Arrington or Behe and Meyer? Maybe a little diplomacy is a better way to advance things rather than war.

  30. phoodoo:
    Patrick can say he doesn’t believe we in are in war of ideas, but he sure does sounds like he is in a war of ideas.

    So Lizzie, when are you going to appoint a UD supporter as one of your admins?

    JohnnyB is signed up, but he said he didn’t have a lot of time right now. I hope he will be along shortly.

  31. stcordova: There is no common ground between the universal post-modern acid of materialist Darwinism and virtually any modern theism.

    Note that stcordova was quoting WJM from a post at UD.

    And, of course, what is quoted above is clearly wrong. There is plenty of common ground. The conflict is not between evolution and modern theism. Rather, it is between evolution and conservative theism.

Leave a Reply