Dembski Admits Motives
It’s official: Uncommon Descent is an IDC circle jerk:
The deal with this blog, since I’ve given it over to my friends, is to build community and “feel the love.” Unfortunately, that requires recalcitrant elements to be purged. That’s a price I’m willing to pay.
Comment by William Dembski — January 10, 2006
The other comment up-thread is even more damning:
So even if you’re civil and polite in Uncommon Descent comments you’ll still get banned if you bad mouth them elsewhere; they’re so worried about dissent that they go through the extra effort of vetting you in the blogosphere for participation worthiness. This isn’t just close-mindedness. This is hermetically sealed in a mile deep bomb shelter close-mindedness.
Further proof that there is just no reasoning with these people.
Oops. The site itself proves you wrong. There are many people disagreeing POLITELY with ID and Dembski’s ideas in the very first posts at the top of the page and they are not banned or limited in their commenting at all.
You claim he admits some motive? Yes- the motive is to have a place for discussion that is polite and civil unlike allowing people to rant like loons such as you will see on sites like PT.
Heaven forbid someone want to run a site that disallows personal attacks, slander, hostile comments, etc.
I’m sure if I comment 100 times with stuff such as “you rape children” “your mother is a whore” and various other such items, you’d rightfully delete them. You can do it, but if Bill does it- he has some ulterior motive.
I also love your language that starts this post- how old are you? 10? And you bogusly call it IDC, tho it’s obvious that nowhere in ID does it say that life is the result of a series of creation events which is what creationism says. The claim is odd since if you check any of the prominent creationist sites- they disapprove of ID.
So, they disapprove of their own theory, huh? Good one, but people with common sense see that ID is NOT creationism, and your cheap ploy falls flat on its face.
I missed the part where this was posted to uncommondescent.com, and Google doesn’t find anything. Could you please provide URLs?
I fear you may have misunderstood what I said above. I was not calling William Dembski or anyone else at Uncommon Descent a jerk. To paraphrase Mark Twain, the difference between a jerk and a circle jerk is a large matter–it’s the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.
I could be wrong. It could simply be that you are a delicate flower who gets the vapors at the mention of masturbation. If that’s the case, feel free to substitute “mutual admiration society” for “circle jerk”.
This may be true, but only because ID is devoid of any content, since it boils down to “somewhere, somehow, there’s something wrong with evolution, and
Godan unspecified intelligent supernatural entity is somehow involved.”
ID is not young-earth creationism, I’ll give you that (they, at least, aren’t coy about naming the “designer”). But if we define “creationism” as “religious opposition to human evolution and/or common descent”, then ID certainly qualifies (as the Dover trial amply demonstrated). If you disagree, and think that ID is science, I’ll ask you to try to answer some of these list of Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions About ID.
That’s not disapproval of a rival theory; it’s just infighting between two sects of a religion. No different, really, from comparable (nonviolent) disagreements between Sunnis and Shiites, or Catholics and Protestants, or Orthodox and Reform Jews.
At any rate, thank you for providing me with some much-needed amusement on this otherwise dreary afternoon.
Comments are closed.