Dover’s done talking intelligent design, but rest of the world isn’t

“Clergy who support evolution took a stand last fall. Ten thousand of them, including the Rev. Deborah Volker of the Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church of York, signed a letter affirming their support. Volker doesn’t believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, so she sees no conflict.” This just sounds like more Darwinian propaganda. I don’t believe it for a second. Comment by Boesman — January 15, 2006 @ 9:29 pm LOL. Believe whatever you wish. It might be a good idea to read the statement the clerics signed though (BTW. They were all clerics, not congregation members) Then read the statement the 400 scientists signed. One is far more clear than the other. Guess which. Stephen Elliott

The content is 0. Red Reader

woctor informs me that my comments are visible, ok then the 0's don't seem to matter. I guess I'm unable to delete my earlier posts... Inoculated Mind

Oh, if anyone wants to send me an email about my last post, you can do so at science@inoculatedmind.com. Inoculated Mind

I wasn't trying to argue anything, Red Reader, I am merely pointing out that the discussion of UD outside of this site has really taken notice of the way comments are moderated, just like Neotoma pointed out with the shark analogy. I see that I have not been banned, but I could have sworn that yesterday my 'level' was 1, and it counted posts, but now I see 0 and 0 for both of them. Was it that server glitch? If it is true that my level has been altered so that no one else may read my posts then it is practically the same as banning. I would have asked someone by email about this if there were any email addresses or URL's in the profiles of the administrators, so I guess this is my only way of asking. Inoculated Mind

Thunar and Inoculated, You haven't been booted yet. Yet you continue to express your views. Therefore your attacks are self-refuting. Furthermore, if jboze3131 wants back, I'm betting he gets back. jboze has a temper but his heart's in the right place. Innoculated says: People on other weblogs noticed the comment moderation that was going on in 2005. Now they are REALLY noticing it. .... That's right. They see comments that for the most part are sane as opposed to insane like the site Thunar mentioned. Plus, at least here we have moderation unlike the site mentioned that is mostly immoderate. Red Reader

People on other weblogs noticed the comment moderation that was going on in 2005. Now they are REALLY noticing it. Inoculated Mind

DaveScot. If you say that you have gagged "Darwin apologists" then I must make the conclusion that anyone who expresses a "Darwin apologist" view will be banned. "Darwin apologists" are just supporters of evolution... So in effect what you are saying is that ANY critic will be banned? Is it not stupid to have a blog where critics will be silenced? You mock PT, but they are a hundred times more tolerant than this site. Why not just put a big notice up. "All evolutionists or christians will be banned". Then at least there is no confusion. Thunar

Hello everyone. I am new to this blog. Looks interesting to say the least. I hope that we can put up a united front so to speak. I agree with Red Reader's comments about joze3131. They seem to be fitting in a broad sense that there are worldview implications. The Darwinites use the implications to their advantage all the time. I don't see what the big deal is with the ID supporters using the same ideas. I agree that the ideas are related- the religious who are used by Darwinites to make a "consensus" when the ideas manytimes don't fit with their personal religious views. I see joze3131's points in that perspective. I think we should try to be more tolerant. I've see many other sites that are very militant, and it's always nice to see a site where many views are allowed and respected. Hopefully we can all find some common ground to stand on and plant firmly in it- in a broad sense. I thought Mr. Bill Dembski was actually a professor at a seminary? I also thought he wrote on theological matters related to ID. Behe says he's a Roman Catholic and that his view (outside of the SCIENCE of ID) is that the designer is God (the God of the Bible.) So, they all seem to fit logically together. Not my call though. We can all hopefully make a united front to fight what Dembski and others oppose- strict materialism as one example. I apologize if my own comments sounded religious in nature. I am a religious person myself, in case anyone was wondering. Thanks for the chance to comment!!! Like this site a lot. God bless everyone. JasonPanopolis

Dave, If I may, I would like to ask you tolerate Dr. Dembski's supporters like jboze3131 (or me for that matter) when writing about the *implications* of ID. First, I for one emphatically appreciate the fact that you boot the dishonest, closeminded and unwilling-to-listen-or-learn Darwinian die-hards. Dogmatism in opposition to ID has a place over at Panda's but is tiresome and boring here. Next, as a historian, if I may say implications of ID are important to me. In the implications, the "culture wars" are being waged. Dr. Dembski often posts here about the "culture wars". In pursuit of the truth that really is, ID is necessarily and unavoidably in the thick of the culture wars. As a rigorous theory, ID and its implications are affecting the way people think, the way truth is viewed: cultural, historical, mathematical, philosophical and yes religious truths should theoretically mesh with one another. In my opinion, real truth meshes seamlessly across fields of study. When the implications of a truth in one field mesh with implications of a truth in another field, this becomes an important fact in both fields of its own; such a fact buttresses the findings in each field. With all due respect, Josh seemed to be writing about those sorts of relevant implications, implications stemming from the theory of ID, implications that buttress ID albeit the broader arena. Such implications are critical to the culture wars. I just now reread what jboze3131. I just don't see anything out of line with the theory of ID in it. He appears to pursue definite implications of ID relevant to Dr. Dembski's post of the article by Michelle Star. Now that of course is my opinion and my opinion plus $1.50 will get a mocha latte at Starbuch's. Yours is the opinion that counts. I'd just like to ask you to reconsider and to tolerate those discussions of the *implications* of ID such as Josh was posing. What I'm really saying is I'M afraid of getting booted. Glenn J. Houston Red Reader

The only "preaching" we do is state the fact that ID at is now does not provide a direct link to the identity of the designer. If that ever happens I'm sure you'll hear about it. Patrick

"Just keep in mind this isn’t a forum for preaching about religion. " True, it is for preaching about Klingons, space men and time travelers, you know, the intelligent designer. Miles

Mats No one has crossed any lines except for Josh. Josh is so bright and well informed it really pains me to see him go and I will miss him as much as anyone. But his bad temper (see above), evangelism, and refusal to accept moderator requests will have to find a home elsewhere. If you cross any lines in this regard you'll get fair warning first. So don't sweat it. Just keep in mind this isn't a forum for preaching about religion. DaveScot

Nice flames there Josh. Unfortunately they caught some bridges on fire... DaveScot

I've been itching to comment on this but its not my place... Its irrational , its impossible, its against my religion ( quote from one my fav. tv shows ) Charlie Charliecrs

Now I know why all the evolutionists love coming here. It's like watching Discovery Channel's Shark Week. Its a feeding frenzy and, like sharks, they don't care who they bite, friend or foe. I'm just going to lurk in the shadows and wait and see if someone bites their own tail off in the frenzy. Neotoma

Since DS also said that no topic but design will be discussed here. I will be emailing Bill and demanding he remove the category "religion". I will also be demanding that no one be allowed to post anything "OFF TOPIC" even remotely related to religion or anything besides Dave Scott's strict and narrow guidelines. This site is becoming a major JOKE. DS knows my entire point was- they are using these people for propaganda...to him that's apologetics (like I said, he needs a dictionary), and proselytizing. DS is confused and thinks this is HIS soapbox. Amazingly, Bill has a degree in theology and originally created this site with the category RELIGION (look under it to see all the religious items), so clearly not even DS can get his story straight. jboze3131

DaveScot I take back what I said before. You're a power hungry idiot. You are simply ruining this blog. Many people have expressed the same sentiment here in comments and E-Mail to me, as well as comments on my personal website. You hate religion- I get that. You're an agnostic and revealed religion has no place in your worldview, but you know damned well I wasn't doing apologetics. Apologetics means DEFENDING something. I was simply showing the means of propaganda used by the Darwinists who use evolution in such a vague manner that everyone signs up to support it, having no idea that it contradicts their own beliefs...it's propaganda spread thru ignorance. That was my ONLY point, and even the others here clearly see how it's related. Get yourself a dictionary and look up apologetics. Then look up anal. Then get a self help book on how to control your urges to be so obsessed with power that you're turning away all of Bill's supporters, simply because I pointed out the role of propaganda here. I will be contacting Bill once again as well as Bombadill. Like I said, you are ruining this site, and I won't let you do it without a fight. I will be pasting all my comments and showing Bill that I did nothing wrong, and you're power hungry approach is old and tired. You're an older guy (40 right?) but you're acting like a child, and I think I speak for many others when I say- we're tired of it. jboze3131

Dave, Yes, its true that this is a blog related solely to the scientifical theory of Inteligent Design. However you know that militant Darwinists have tried to smugle Darwinism into Christianity, and have tried to tag as "creationism" the theory of Inteligent Design. Can't a Christian share his own view about such atempts, and draw the line between Inteligent Design Science, and Creation Science? God bless Mats

Just more of the genetic logical fallacy. They assume how we see scientific evidence has no bearing on our positions. geoffrobinson

Who is the "Josh" in question? I thought that ID, like evolution, allowed for religious support, while at the same time being explicit that ID has no religious doctrine as its basis? Boesman

I've banned a gaggle of Darwin apologists and only one Christian apologist. Repeated proselytizing of anything other than design theory can be taken elsewhere. This is a soapbox for one thing and one thing only - the Intelligent Design Theory of William Dembski. DaveScot

DaveScot. Are you saying that Christian Apologetics are not welcome here, or that they have no right to an opinion, or that people with a religious connection with ID should rather hide it and shut up about it? Thunar

Dave, Just WHAT "Christian apologetics" did Josh do ? Can't someone comment ANYTHING in this blog anymore, without it being labeled as "Christian apologetics"? Goodness Mats

Gildodgin "It is precisely because of my scientific literacy that I am convinced that these explanations are bogus." Bingo! DaveScot

Josh, you're out of here again. This is not a soapbox for Christian apologetics. -ds DaveScot

Ok, I've found the 'Clergy who support evolution' petition statement: "Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts. We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth." http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm I don't quite know what to make of it. I would have expected something as vague, and it does indeed seem to say nothing really solid about what these people have signed up to and what their religious/community standing is. Is anyone out there actually doing some kind of verification of the people who are supporting this? How can anyone be certain that they are all genuine clergy? I'm still in shock that this is the first I've heard of this. Perhaps, the ID movement should start a similar campaign in support of the design position? I'm willing to get the ball rolling but will certainly need some help, as this would be my first effort of this type. Boesman

Oh, why do people keep calling the materialistic mumbo-jumbo "science"? They don't like ID because they feel it hurts their dogmatic belief system, it has nothing to do with science. Delance

"We're probably destined to keep battling over it for a while," Boston said. "At some point I think a scientific literacy will take hold." Scientific literacy is taking hold. Unfortunately for Boston, it is having a diametrically opposite effect from what he expects. Boston's comment was made to advocate for the fact that if people were just well enough educated in the sciences that they would come to believe in purely materialistic causes, including random mutation and natural selection, as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life, and its origin. It is precisely because of my scientific literacy that I am convinced that these explanations are bogus. GilDodgen

Oh, no...that's not what I was saying. That's what I tell people all the time, there are agnostics and atheists who believe in design and ID in particular. I'm talking more of the propaganda. I think often times you get certain people who go into churches and just say "evolution" and have people sign on. Tho, they never mention that they're signing onto the Darwinian model, and no doubt most of the people who sign it have no idea what Darwinism says. But, those who start these petitions don't care...they use the vague term "evolution" which even creationists don't deny happens to some degree, and then use it to say- here, look- it's okay for religious people to support it, when for the most part, they churchgoers aren't fully aware that the evolution usually meant is the meaningless happy accident Darwinian model on a foundation of chance and no divine intervention at any point. On a second note- I was just, in general, referring to people who say I believe this, but I don't believe the main core concepts of it. Like someone who says, I'm a Christian, but the Bible is nonsense...it's a total contradiction and irrational at that. Which also means that the people they get to speak for them in support of evolution are endlessly confused as it is...better to push the propaganda. jboze3131

Michelle Star thinks the cultural divide exists because "religious" people are split on theories and implications. From the article: .... Experts say finding a resolution or common ground won't come easy, because the so-called "middle ground" are those who accept evolutionary theory and also believe in a God. The pro-intelligent design group The Discovery Institute maintains the concept is not religious because it doesn't concern itself with identifying the designer, but [Judge] Jones ruled it was "grounded in religion." The popular interpretation by many supporters recognizes the designer as God. .... But go to Jonathan Witt's blog at http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/01/evolution_and_the_religion_of.html and follow the links to this article .... Joe Carter has posted a collection of significant remarks from respondents to the 2006 Edge Question: What is your dangerous idea?... Joe writes: In his insightful summary, Brockman mentions the most foundational belief of neism: Everything in the universe is the product of blind evolutionary processes. As Richard Dawkins explained in answering last year’s question, “I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.” This is the core of their mystical faith system; everything rests on this claim being indubitable. Just as the resurrection is the cornerstone of Christianity, natural selection is the pillar on which neism stands. That is why neists have an apoplectic fit over Intelligent Design. The heretical notion does not just question a theory, it denys the foundation of their religious beliefs. Some even claim that their belief system must destroy other religions. .... Michelle Star is right that the resolution won't come easily, but she completely overlooks the militant fundamentalism foaming from the NDE side. I urge everyone to follow the links from Dr. Witt's blog to go to read some of the "shock-wildering" comments by educated and credentialed people who have drawn uncategorically "religious" implications from Darwinism. Many statements are jaw-droppers. Red Reader

jboze3131, "I’m a Christian, but I’m not really into that whole Bible book, and that morality stuff and The Law within it- no thank you." You don't have to be Christian to believe in ID. There are even AETHEISTS who belive in an intelligent cause to the universe. The Bible is in support of ID but is NOT the basis for it. Boesman

From the article: "It is part of the culture wars, which encompass differing views Americans use to define their lives, particularly on issues such as abortion, sexuality and the separation of church and state." I'm sure there has been thought expressed on the relationship of NDE to abortion and sexuality issues; can any one point me to them? Or in fact, the relation of NDE to the whole red state vs. blue state cultural divide? Vouchers, the war in Iraq, "living constitution" vs. "original intent" in law, capitalism vs. marxism in economics, etc., etc.? Red Reader

From a theological perspective, I have a feeling some of these folks are off the deep end.

Most fundamentalist Christians are good, hard working people, Simpson said, but their leaders have established a foothold in American politics and are lobbying to effect or turn back change in areas such as reproductive rights.

Turn back change? AKA- they want to stop abortions. A Christian group that attacks "fundamentalists" for wanting a culture of life...heaven forbid such a notion. I often wonder if "progressive/liberal/mainline Christians" even believe what they say. I'm a Christian, but I'm not really into that whole Bible book, and that morality stuff and The Law within it- no thank you. I love fishing, but using those fishing rods and actually catching fish- that's just not for me. And the woman doesn't view the Bible as literal? If you don't view your holy book is literal, what CAN you view it as? You can take any view you like with that logic and pick and choose what to believe, which makes it nonsense. Other than that, I'm afraid these groups get confused when they sign on to support "evolution", when in fact they're signing on to support a particular FORM of evolution. I think that many of them don't realize what Darwinism really says- man is a result of a trillion happy accidents who was never meant to meant to be here. jboze3131

"Clergy who support evolution took a stand last fall. Ten thousand of them, including the Rev. Deborah Volker of the Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church of York, signed a letter affirming their support. Volker doesn't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, so she sees no conflict." This just sounds like more Darwinian propaganda. I don't believe it for a second. Boesman