Bad: He doesn't really have to say anything at all to blow his cover. All he has to say is that Bethel is mischaracterizing his reasons.

In fact, it's giving him a chance to clear things up INSTEAD of accusing him of playing Bethel's game.

Bad, it looks as if you have issues with Bethel and are looking for reasons to debunk the soon to be released movie Expelled. Your choice of words shows a predisposition on your part. Bethel is mischaracterizing… …playing Bethel's game?

Mike wants the thoughts he expresses to be judged by others based on their own merits. IOW, he does not want his ideas supported (or debunked) by the authority that is frequently associated with academic or scientific titles but would prefer to have them assessed based on their own merit.

You've completely missed the point, while Todd gets it pretty much correct. I said at the outset that Mike's stated reasons were very reasonable and defended psuedonyms (after all, I use one myself). The point is that Bethel IS trying to use Mike as an authority and a partisan talking point: he's doing exactly what Mike has implied he doesn't want done. Bethel is using Mike's anonymity AS a means to make his point: that Mike is a biologist who keeps his identity secret out of fear: not fear of his identity clouding the debate (a legitimate idea) but rather fear that the Darwinist hordes will descend from the trees and destroy his life (the basic message of the). And I want to know if Mike thinks that's accurate. He doesn't even have to reveal which part of it is not accurate.

Not to reply for Mike, but the obvious answer is 'he takes his anonymity seriously, and realizes that the moment he starts engaging questions about said anonymity, it's placed at greater risk.'

He doesn't really have to say anything at all to blow his cover. All he has to say is that Bethel is mischaracterizing his reasons.

This isn't about nailing down details about who Mike is. I honestly don't care if he's a biologist or not. I'm not a biologist, and I feel fine to engage in debates about things I am capable of understanding as a layperson, and can still make worthwhile points.

In fact, it's giving him a chance to clear things up INSTEAD of accusing him of playing Bethel's game. You'll notice that it's been weeks since I first read the Bethel claims and asked Mike. I haven't since blogged anything about Mike being a bad guy here. I want to know if he agrees with how Bethel is leveraging his psueodnymity or not.

However, I think the issue that Bad was digging at is that Mike stated he used a pseudonym in order to avoid making an argument to authority based on his personal expertise. This includes both positive and negative effects that his authority might add. If he where, for example, a biologist that might be seen as strengthening his argument whereas if he was, say, a minister at a fundamentalist church that might lead people to dismiss the idea regardless of its merit. But now Tom Bethel is asserting that Mike is, actually, an authority. Unless Mike secretly is Tom Bethel he surely can't be held accountable for this, but if he truly wants to be seen as a neutral authority he should not allow a misconception to persist. If he knowingly allows a misconception to persist because that misconception increases his authority then his claim of trying to avoid asserting authority wouldn't hold water.

So I can see Bad's point, but in this case since Tom Bethel is not himself in any way an authority on anything Mike can easily ignore Tom. In effect Tom's claims simply do not justify any sort of response. Tom could claim that Mike farts fire and can levetate using the power of his mind, would Mike need to respond to that? Added on top the fact that Bad may well have an ulterior motive of wanting to claim that Mike specifically lacks authority and you can understand why the wise move of Mike's part is to simply ignore the question.

Sounds like the CEO of an organic food corporation.

[Gasp!] Howd'ya know!!?? §;o)

Joy: I'll be"¦ Stu-ey! Naw. Hmmm"¦ how about CS Lewis (Christine Staton, that is)? Rosalind Franklin? Frau Niebuhr? Amy Einstein?

Huh. Better just stick with Joy. I just never learned how to answer to anything else, despite all my many names!

I like Joy R. Franklin. Sounds like the CEO of an organic food corporation.

Huh. Better just stick with Joy. I just never learned how to answer to anything else, despite all my many names!

I don't think Bad is who he says he is either. Who are you? And why should I care?

Who am I? "Rock"? I don't even know anymore! [Choke. Sob.]

I think we should all adopt the persona and go by the name of our favorite person, say our favorite philosopher, scientist, or theologian. Shit, I'd still be me! LOL

And yet here is Bethel and Expelled, referencing who he thinks MikeGene is explicitly to make a big politicized deal out of it. What I want to know is whether MikeGene thinks that is accurate or legitimate or not.

I don't get it - so MikeGene has good reasons for anonymity, but someone commented on who he thinks Mike really is, and you don't see why Mike would remain silent about it?

Not to reply for Mike, but the obvious answer is 'he takes his anonymity seriously, and realizes that the moment he starts engaging questions about said anonymity, it's placed at greater risk.' Do you honestly not see why a person who values anonymity would not want to get into games of confirming or denying other people's claims about their identity? Especially when MG has said outright that he doesn't even want people to consider his occupation when reviewing his arguments?

More to the point, how long will this chain be? 'Hey Mike, here's a question about your identity.' 'How come you won't answer?' 'How come you won't answer why you won't answer?' 'How come you won't answer why you won't answer why you won't answer?'

If Mike is a working, publishing biologist, that would be worth knowing so we can better judge what Bethel is saying. All I'm asking is Mike's opinion on what Bethel has said about him and whether it's all accurate.

Perhaps you are unaware of explanations given by Mike in the past so let me paraphrase to the best of my recollection. Mike wants the thoughts he expresses to be judged by others based on their own merits. IOW, he does not want his ideas supported (or debunked) by the authority that is frequently associated with academic or scientific titles but would prefer to have them assessed based on their own merit. Mike can correct me if I'm not accurate about this but I think this is the gist of it. It also strikes me as refreshing particularly, in a world where power and political clout frequently count more than the validity of competing concepts on the table.

Rather than continuing your attempts to uncover details about Mike's background why not discuss the specifics of what he has written in a forum like this where your comments can be analyzed by people of all different viewpoints?