Yes, if Behe were the one offering the course, I doubt he would get as much support from the PTers, even if he had the exact same reading list. Actually, that's a good question. I might wander over there and ask it.

I get the feeling that for some of the PT types if ID didn't exist they'd have to invent it. Otherwise their psyches would collapse from the absence of anything to fume about.

BTW, Lenny sounds like a real fun guy, doesn't he?

MacNeill vs. PT regulars

MacNeill wrote:
Odd. I thought scientific disputes were "won or lost" on the basis of empirical evidence and rational argument, as happened in Dover (the full transcript of which, BTW, is one of the readings for my course).

I became a Quaker and a conscientious objector against the Vietnam War partly because I disagreed with statements like yours. And I became an evolutionary biologist because I valued facts and reasoned arguments more than opinions or political demagoguery. Clearly, you value the opposite.

And before you essay once again into the realm of ignorant character assasination, try Google first. It's easy to find: just type "www.Google.com" into the funny little rectangle at the top of your browser page (that thing you're reading now), and then type in my name (spell it right: Alllen MacNeill), and then read a few entries. I recommend "MacNeill fisks Dembski" (assuming your attention span is long enough).
….

HaHa, see what happens when you get steamed up? You type your own name wrong: It's Allen MacNeill.

Sometimes it's hard to tell your enemies from your friends around here"¦

MacNeill is sniping at Lenny Flank, a PT regular!

The father of the IDM was a lawyer. The current leader, who now teaches in a seminary, admits the cultural renewal program has gotten ahead of the 'scientific research program' or scientific bench work. The academic position of ID 'theory' is still in the vast minority and a leading ID (who is a) biologist continues to make appeals to Mt. Rushmore. The logic/rational has not wholly yet come together.

No doubt, smart (cf. 'intelligent') people can and should examine the ideas that IDists are promoting. If McNeil can present a balanced course – great.

Why do people think he wouldn't answer my question about whether or not he would discuss the concept of 'scientism' in his course?

IDists are stupid because they are nothing more than religious fundamentalist creationists. When they deny this, they also become dishonest. It's really that simple – for many critics, that is.

So why are IDists stupid or dishonest, again?