Jkrebs
Posts: 590
Joined: Sep. 2004
|
An open letter to DaveScot, on the off-chance that he checks this site at times:
Hi Dave,
First of all, I'd like to say thanks for banning me. I get a little obsessive sometimes about liking to discuss things with people who disagree with me: not only have I spent way too much time at UD lately, but I keep getting sucked in (it's my own fault) to further conversation despite my vows to myself to quit.
But now that I am banned I can quit thinking about posting, and maybe wean myself away from paying any attention to UD at all, freeing my time and mental energy for more productive uses.
Second, I can't believe that you not only banned Ted Davis and me, you also banned Timaeus, an articulate ID supporter, because
| Quote | | After reviewing Timaeus’ last several comments and finding the word “God” in them over 100 times (I stopped counting at 100) I decided he needs to take it to a site where the topic is God. |
Dave, did you forgot that the topic of the thread, started by none other than yourself, was a video by AAAS represented the views of theistic evolutionists in response to "Expelled"?
So let me remind you how you opened the thread:
| Quote | I see all these scientists and science teachers in this video proclaiming they see “God’s Hand” in the universe all day long then in the same breath they say design detection is bogus.
So what exactly do they “see” that convinces them that God’s hand is all over the place? ...
Personally I think these people are either liars who are not convinced they see God all over the place or they are being truthful in becoming convinced of things with no rational evidence ....
Sorry if I’m offending anyone but these people disgust me. They’re all like “I believe in rational inquiry, science, and bearded thunderers who live in the sky and worry about my immortal soul”. Please. Choose one or the other but not both. |
Dave - the topic of the whole frickin' thread was God - did you forget that?
And what did I get banned for? Let's take a look.
You had written, at post 255,
| Quote | | The entire TE position against ID is that design is not unambiguously detectable in nature. |
I replied, at 256,
| Quote | | I don’t believe the general TE position is “that design is not unambiguously detectable in nature” in the sense of there being no possibility of the type of thing you describe. |
To which you replied, at 263, after four other people had posted with various comments about God,
| Quote | | The case I proposed to Ted required no supernatural intervention. The claim that ID is all about a supernatural designer is a straw man. |
Dave, the remark I responded to was about theistic evolutionists - you know - people who believe in God. You made a remark about the beliefs of TE's, and then castigate me for believing that maybe the role of God, and possibly supernatural intervention might be part of the topic. Can you possibly see the contradiction in your behavior here?
So finally, you write, at 265,
| Quote | Screw this.
Jack Krebs and Ted Davis are no longer with us. Arguing with TE’s is like beating your head against a brick wall. |
"Screw this" - the cry of frustration.
I'm going to be blunt here, Dave: your response and actions come off as looking like a petulant little boy, not a mature adult. Sure, UD is your and Dembski's blog and you can make it your own personal playground if you want. But as representatives of a movement that preaches "teach the controversy" and "teach the strengths and weaknesses", and that wishes, theoretically, to be taken seriously, you appear to be pretty full-fledged hypocrites, wanting to dish it out but not willing or able to take it when people don't buy what you're selling.
Ted Davis had this to say to you, at 249:
| Quote | | If you folks want more conversations of the kind that have sometimes happened on a few of these threads, you’re going to have to stop “expelling” people who ask good questions and who do not accept the categorizations of their views that are made by some here. ID folks resent it when others miscategorize their own views, and with good reason. That works both ways. |
Yep.
So I'm glad to be gone from UD. Your site is irrelevant. The only people who get to post are the ID believers, so you all get to stand around and pat each other on the back about how right you are, protected from any "critical analysis" of your ideas (another ID buzzword that you don't really believe in). This may be fun, but don't expect it to have anything but a negative impact on the larger world.
And last, a small disclaimer, which I made clear many times: my goal in the thread has been to describe the views of TE. I am not personally a TE, and I have not been trying to convince anyone that they should be.
I think the topic is important because, despite your disclaimers, the heart of the ID movement's strategy is to "wedge" people into two groups: those that will accept supernatural explanations as part of science and those that won't, and to throw all of the latter into the materialist-atheist basket. TE's threaten the very heart of the wedge, and the leaders of the movement know that.
I work with children every day, and it is common to find children who will blatantly lie about something even when presented with direct evidence to the contrary. It's not so much that they are inherently dishonest, but rather that they are still immature enough to think that if they pretend that they can't see the evidence others can't also. They have not yet fully learned that adults are not stupid.
The ID movement is like that. You guys make all these arguments that ID is really about science, and the designers could be space aliens, and yet the bulk of the actions of those in the movement belie that. No matter how many times you say it is otherwise you can't make it so.
One of my favorite sayings, posted on the wall of my classroom so that students will start to learn, is by Stephen Covey:
| Quote | | You can't talk yourself out of something you have behaved yourself into. |
You, individually Dave, as well as UD and the ID movement in general, are judged by your behavior much more than your words. You would benefit from at least practicing trying to see yourself as others see you (another adult trait): if you do, you might be able to start behaving yourself out of acting in the less-than-admirable ways that you regularly display at UD.
So thanks for kicking me out of the playground, Dave - I'm off to do more productive things with my life.
Jack
|
