John Gee's book review and thoughts:

[_Mister Scratch]

it was little more than a smear

Here's a bit of friendly advice:

Why don't you just program your computer to send out precisely that line every time my name appears on the web?

I wasn't talking about you, Prof. P. I was referring to Gee's article.

It would save you oodles of effort in the long run, and would guarantee that your fundamental message reaches the masses who yearn to hear it.

Having done so, in the autumn of your life, rich in achievement and full of years, you'll be able to contemplate the great work that you've accomplished with contentment and satisfaction.

And how would that possibly compare to the countless smears which either you yourself have engaged in, or the character assassinations you have facilitated in your capacity as editor for FARMS Review? What, in the end, will you have accomplished? Do you honestly and truly feel proud of the various articles you've gathered up for that journal? How many testimonies has your work saved? How much genuine good does FARMS do, Prof. P.? I would really like to know.... What, at base, is the fundamental good being performed by your apologetic enterprise? Care to enlighten me?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Care to enlighten me?

No, no more than I would care to create a married bachelor, draw a circular triangle, or breed a cold-blooded mammal.

Yes, I feel quite pleased with what the FARMS Review has done and what it has become.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

A good smear is a targeted smear. When Mike Quinn was assigned to me, I was thrilled that I would be entrusted with such an important character-assassination portfolio. I knew I had arrived.

Ah, so that explains your involvement in BYU's threat to pull out of the Yale conference if Quinn were allowed to present. It all makes sense now ....

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Those people who find me hurtful and offensive are often serenely at peace with the likes of Polygamy Porter, Some Schmo, Mister Scratch, Rollo Tomasi, and the entire art of deliberate, sustained character assassination.

They've forfeited even the slightest smidgin of credibility as judges.

Why? Because I say the truth? Truth can never be "character assassination."

[_Some Schmo]

Those people who find me hurtful and offensive are often serenely at peace with the likes of Polygamy Porter, Some Schmo, Mister Scratch, Rollo Tomasi, and the entire art of deliberate, sustained character assassination.

They've forfeited even the slightest smidgin of credibility as judges.

Why? Because I say the truth? Truth can never be "character assassination."

Well, not to mention the fact that the person in question must have some character for it to be assassinated.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

FI disagree with the notion of "teaching the controversy". The fact is, teaching the controversy is not teaching science. At best it's Social Studies, or History. Science classes are for teaching science, not for teaching the fact that some frustrated born-again Christians have a problem with modern science. Until and unless ID can be demonstrated to be good science, it simply doesn't belong. And it hasn't been, and IMHO never will be, because it's just plain old bad science.

[
As I've already noted, Michael Behe is a mainstream Catholic, Philip Johnson is a mainstream Protestant, Michael Denton is an agnostic former Protestant, and David Berlinski is an agnostic Jew.[/code]

Can you name some more nonreligoius ID advocates? I'm afraid you just picked most of the few examples of your point that exist. I wouldn't want you to mistakenly give the impression to others that ID advocacy is more diverse than it is in reality. It is true there exist a few, but they are a tiny, tiny percentage of the overall group. I'm not saying this is good or bad. Actually, I'll just flat say it isn't bad. It's just reality. If you go down the Discovery Institute's list of fellows, almost all are religious, moreso than in society at large. Almost all are are specifically known for religious advocacy. Their funding is comes from religious sources, their work is mainly popular in religious apologetics, and they spend a great deal of time in religious venues arguing how their work supports religion. When I say "they" I mean people like Philip Johnson, Micheal Behe, William Dembski, Jay Richards, Jonathan Wells, J.P Moreland, Paul Nelson, Nancy Pearcy, Robert Koons, Forrest Mims, William Lane Craig, Dean Kenyon, and Charles Thaxton. I could go on until I've named almost every "whos who" name in ID. Most of this occurs specifically within the context of conservative protestant faiths in America. If you read the "dissent from Darwinism" list almost all found there are religious. Within that category, a very large percentage are evangelical protestants, though it is more diverse than what you are responding to implies. ID is an an evolution (pardon the pun) of the American creationist movement and still shares its general makeup, so this isn't shocking. It's dominated by conservative protestants, but it is by no means controlled by them. There are Muslim ID advocates just the same as there were Muslim creationists. So, yes, the stereotype is false in the sense that it isn't true in every case. It's wrong and and borderline bigoted to say it is just the product of "frustrated born-agains" but it is also wrong to think ID isn't not an overwhelmingly conservative Christian phenomenon.

[_karl61]

I actually posted on MA&D that I thought Pahoran and DCP was the same person, but DCP got to be a little bit meaner as Paharon.

LOL!

Pahoran was the worst behaved poster at ZLMB. Every now and then he'd be given a temporary ban to calm down, but the LDS mods just never could bring themselves to ban him permanently, which he abundantly deserved. With rare exception, it seemed that believers really enjoyed Pahoran. Perhaps he was saying all the things they would like to have said, themselves. I never understood it. It seemed obvious they needed to reign him in, because he gave "their side" a bad name. There's always at least a couple of believing posters like that on these sort of boards, just as there are some really poorly behaved exbelievers on boards.

One of the threads was also who is your favorite anti: I wrote Pahoran and Selek as I think in the long run they do more damage than good. I said they could be stealth EV's knowing what they are doing will hurt the LDS side. If LDS, they have likely revived the Danites and have secret meetings: "thank you sir may I have another" is what they love to hear.

[_The Dude]

In any case, I believe that the science, as such, could be taught in a very interesting way by squaring some of the ID writers off against their critics. That would be science, not social studies.

No, it would still be social studies, or philosophy. When Philip Johnson says naturalism is an unwarranted assumption in science, he is not making a criticism that belongs in a HS science class where naturalism is the assumption.

Behe, at least, makes biological arguments, but they are god-of-the-gaps arguments which are just plain old bad science (as noted by Sethbag). A discussion of Irreducible Complexity would fit well as a modern example of reasoning that scientists shouldn't use.

Question for DCP: How is ID taught at BYU? Or is it?

[_The Dude]

As I've already noted, Michael Behe is a mainstream Catholic, Philip Johnson is a mainstream Protestant, Michael Denton is an agnostic former Protestant, and David Berlinski is an agnostic Jew.

Can you name some more nonreligoius ID advocates? I'm afraid you just picked most of the few examples of your point that exist. I wouldn't want you to mistakenly give the impression to others that ID advocacy is more diverse than it is in reality. It is true there exist a few, but they are a tiny, tiny percentage of the overall group. I'm not saying this is good or bad. Actually, I'll just flat say it isn't bad. It's just reality. If you go down the Discovery Institute's list of fellows, almost all are religious, moreso than in society at large. Almost all are are specifically known for religious advocacy. Their funding is comes from religious sources, their work is mainly popular in religious apologetics, and they spend a great deal of time in religious venues arguing how their work supports religion. When I say "they" I mean people like Philip Johnson, Micheal Behe, William Dembski, Jay Richards, Jonathan Wells, J.P Moreland, Paul Nelson, Nancy Pearcy, Robert Koons, Forrest Mims, William Lane Craig, Dean Kenyon, and Charles Thaxton. I could go on until I've named almost every "whos who" name in ID. Most of this occurs specifically within the context of conservative protestant faiths in America. If you read the "dissent from Darwinism" list almost all found there are religious. Within that category, a very large percentage are evangelical protestants, though it is more diverse than what you are responding to implies. ID is an an evolution (pardon the pun) of the American creationist movement and still shares its general makeup, so this isn't shocking. It's dominated by conservative protestants, but it is by no means controlled by them. There are Muslim ID advocates just the same as there were Muslim creationists. So, yes, the stereotype is false in the sense that it isn't true in every case. It's wrong and and borderline bigoted to say it is just the product of "frustrated born-agains" but it is also wrong to think ID isn't not an overwhelmingly conservative Christian phenomenon.

Thank you ALITD. I don't believe you and DCP are the same person.