Belated Apologies for Jack Krebs
by MikeGeneI have long noted that when most ID critics come to the table, they bring their stereotypes where all ID proponents are either stupid, deceptive, or mentally ill. This stereotype would then often greatly influence the debates, where the critic would go fishing for some tidbit that would serve to reinforce the stereotype (confirmation bias). But with the dawning of the post-wedge world, it has become more clear to me that there are different types of ID critics. That being realized, I think it is more fair to say that this stereotype about IDers is relied upon mostly by type C critics (the hardcore, anti-religious evangelical atheists). This is because the type C critics have the exact same stereotype about all religious people and in their minds, ID = God belief.
So what's with the title of this blog? Back in the pre-Dover days, when I was posting on ARN a lot, there was one critic who consistently objected when I commented on the critics and their stereotypes and that person was Jack Krebs. Looking back, it is now clear to me that Jack was a type A critic and was most likely speaking about himself with sincerity. So if Jack is out there and reading, I offer my sincere apologies for doubting you and dismissing you at the time.
December 27th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Jack Krebs has just been posting on one of my threads at Uncommon Descent, Michael Behe On Falsification. I've found Jack to be a very civil ID critic who raises legitimate issues in a polite manner.
By the way, I gave Telic Thoughts a plug here. You guys do a terrific job here at TT.
Comment by GilDodgen — December 27, 2006 @ 6:59 pm
December 27th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
Yeah, I noticed. Thanks, Gil!
Comment by Krauze — December 27, 2006 @ 7:28 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Well, you tried.
Comment by JAllen — December 28, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Hi JAllen,
I'm a slow learner, but a learner. It just occurred to me (or sunk in) yesterday that the stereotype is actually the EA's stereotype of religious people.
Comment by MikeGene — December 28, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Thanks, Mike. Someone send me word that you had posted this, and I appreciate it.
I am definitely committed to civil dialogue, and I am definitely not anti-religious. I think that the concerns and interests that ID supporters have about understanding the world are important, although clearly I don't agree with the majority of conclusions reached by ID advocates. But I'm always willing, time and circumstances permitting, to consider discussing these issues with people who are open to genuine dialogue.
Thanks again for your post.
Jack
Comment by jkrebs — December 28, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Aside from Mike sounding like a broken record (especially in the last week or so) - 'post-wedge world, post-wedge world' - when he has no authority to 'post' the 'wedge' which he did not construct in the first place, I would like to correct the title of the thread to 'Apologies to Jack Krebs.'
There is no need to apologize for him unless someone is taking a 'designer-centric' viewpoint. That is, the designer (oops, not supposed to talk about that) Who supposedly 'designed' (past tense) Jack Krebs to be the antagonist (changing-over-time) to ID theories/hypotheses that he is. Otherwise, if Mike wishes to stick to the 'for' grammar, then it is as absurd as the 'intelligent + design' concept duo seems to most scientists and scholars without admitting it has a 'theological' or 'religious' dimension overtly or covertly attached to it.
Now that Jack has accepted Mike's apologies, its back to the unresolved confrontation.
Telic Thinking,
Arago
Comment by g arago — December 28, 2006 @ 5:21 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
The use of 'for' rather than 'to' is a pretty ridiculous semantical difference, as it's pretty clear from the context that Mike is preparing an apology for JK (as in preparing to give him). It just goes to show you: When we don't have any honest way to criticize someone, we make up something ridiculous to make us feel like we've done our job.
Comment by thechristiancynic — December 29, 2006 @ 5:43 pm