On Labels and Wells
by machtOnce you label me, you negate me. – Soren Kierkegaard
This post by Nick Matzke on Panda's Thumb made me laugh (moreso than usual). This sentence, in particular, seemed odd:
All of this is worth pointing out because the ID Movement at large has been complaining that methodological naturalism is an unfair constraint on science, and in particular critics of the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover, such as Alvin Plantinga and Steve Fuller, have been asserting that methodological naturalism is an arbitrary, recently invented constraint – Fuller has even gone so far as to say it was constructed as an anti-creationism tool in the 1980's.
What I found odd wasn't the sentence itself, but the first link in the sentence. While talking about the "ID movement at large" he linked to a number of articles and blog posts that criticized the concept of "methodological naturalism" (MN) in some way or another. There's nothing too strange in this, except that the first link was to this blog post by Hugo Holbling. It would be pretty difficult to call Hugo (who has written an excellent introductory series to philosophy, BTW) a member of the "ID movement at large." I've never seen him write anything that criticizes evolutionary theory, I've never seen him write that he accepts the basic ideas of ID, he has criticized ID, and he has flat out denied being a part of the ID movement.
I can think of only a couple explanations for Matzke implying that Hugo is part of the ID movement. First, it could just be a mistake. Matzke could have read Hugo's blog post and wrongly concluded that since he was criticizing the concept of MN that Hugo was a part of the ID movement. This might be understandably since these days, a lot of the critics of MN fall in the ID camp. This is doubt this explanation, though, since Hugo started off his blog post saying,
"One of the things to come out of the Dover Trial and the ever-increasing concern with ID is the sadly not-so-strange phenomenon of some commentators (hopefully an unrepresentative sample) finding so-called ID sympathizers wherever a person departs from a forthright denunciation of ID and injects some subtlety into the debate, regardless of how considered or otherwise their ideas may be."
This is an obvious warning that what follows in the post isn't Hugo's attempt to place himself in the currents of the ID movement, but rather to "inject some subtlety" into the debate. I find it dubious that Matzke, after reading the blog post, could make the mistake of linking Hugo to the ID movement. (I don't rule out the possibility, though, since – as Matzke showed himself – it can be easy to misread a text if we aren't careful.)
The second option is that Matzke is using this as a rhetorical technique in order to poison the well against Hugo's arguments. Knowing that most readers of Panda's Thumb don't look favorably upon members of the "ID movement at large," this strategy would probably work well. This strategy could be used to ignore all kinds of inconvenient arguments. A better strategy (I hope we can all agree), in the spirit of rational discourse, would be to address Hugo's arguments themselves (which, as far as I know, nobody has). I would hope Matzke isn't trying to poison the well, although it is indicative of other similar actions by people who dogmatically defend their positions – labeling IDists as creationists or evolutionists as atheists or whatever.
In any case, I hope Matzke (and everybody) learns something from this, whether it be to read more carefully or to not make assumptions or to lay off the fallacies.
March 21st, 2006 at 5:12 pm
Or, maybe I just linked to that post because it contained a number of ridiculous quotes from Steve Fuller, who was one of my identified targets. I had googled it up by searching for Steve Fuller, and it didn't provide any obvious links to wherever the original Fuller quotes had come from, so I figured I would just link to that.
Sometimes a link is just a link…
Comment by Nick Matzke — March 21, 2006 @ 5:12 pm
March 21st, 2006 at 5:34 pm
That would, of course, explain why you linked to it over the words "Steve Fuller." But your long string of links over the phrase "ID Movement at large has been complaining" implies that those links are from people in the ID movement. That seems to be the impression most people have taken from it, at least. In any case, I trust you agree with the point of my post, no?
The original quoted material was from here, BTW.
Comment by macht — March 21, 2006 @ 5:34 pm
March 21st, 2006 at 5:51 pm
It would be difficult to make a case that Holbling is not an ID Usual Suspect. Can you point to a dozen or so posts in which he critiques ID and supports evolution? How about one? How about one where he's the least bit skeptical about ID, or shows any acceptance at all of the general science?
This rather falls into the category of "thou dost protest too much."
Comment by edarrell — March 21, 2006 @ 5:51 pm
March 21st, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Ah, now I see what the issue is. The first link on "ID" in that sentence is to the Galileiani website. I think that was just a mistake, since the link is the long "trackback" version of the link rather than the short version I linked on for Steve Fuller's name. I tend to write the posts, then stick in the HTML, then stick the URLs into the HTML, then paste the relevant trackback links into the trackbacks window. But not always in that order, and by the time the HTML is in the post it looks like spaghetti anyway. Apologies to Galile-whoever. I will edit.
Comment by Nick Matzke — March 21, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
March 21st, 2006 at 5:56 pm
You didn't read the post, did you Ed.
Comment by macht — March 21, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
March 21st, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Ed, the guy who runs the Galileiani blog has just commented here.
In a brief look-around I did sniff some tossing about of Feyerabend on that blog, which probably helps explain what is apparently previous confusion about whether or not it is an ID blog, but that is a different problem. Feyerabend gives me hives I think.
Comment by Nick Matzke — March 21, 2006 @ 6:06 pm
March 21st, 2006 at 6:08 pm
I mean, here:
http://www.galilean-library.org/blog/?p=142#comment-244
@#*(@ coding…
Comment by Nick Matzke — March 21, 2006 @ 6:08 pm
March 21st, 2006 at 6:26 pm
The point of my post still stands, I think, since you are essentially doing the same thing with Fuller – labeling him as part of the ID movement and calling his statements ridiculous without an argument as to why. Numbers article certainly doesn't go against anything he said.
Comment by macht — March 21, 2006 @ 6:26 pm
March 21st, 2006 at 6:41 pm
Well, here are some examples of patently ridiculous statement from Steve Fuller, statement which definitely contradict what Numbers said in 2003:
If you think something called "˜methodological naturalism' existed before the latest round of Creationist trials in the early 1980s, then you can't tell the difference between a real and pseudo-philosophy.
Methodological naturalism is just an attempt to impose thought control on what sort of person is eligible to do science.
…so-called methodological naturalism is a bit of PC pseudo-philosophy tailor-made for our times.
Defend Fuller's statements in the light of Numbers's essay, or retract your point.
Comment by Nick Matzke — March 21, 2006 @ 6:41 pm
March 21st, 2006 at 7:04 pm
The first statement wasn't from the link that I was refering to (Hugo's blog) (although, as your post at PT showed, "something called 'methodological naturalism'" didn't exist until the early 80's) and I don't see the conflict with the last two. I highly doubt Numbers would agree with them, but I don't see the conflict with what he said in his essay. They are rhetorically over the top, perhaps. Regarding the third statement, Numbers didn't touch on whether MN is good or bad or pseudo philosophy, so his essay has little to say regarding this. The second statement seems obvious (but again, rhetorically over the top) – MN says that if you think the non-natural can be part of science, then your ideas can't be part of science.
Comment by macht — March 21, 2006 @ 7:04 pm
March 21st, 2006 at 7:33 pm
Macht,
Your response isn't even slightly plausible.
1. Numbers shows clearly that something that we now call "methodological naturalism" existed long before the Creationist trials of the early 1980's. Obviously the concept is far more important than the label, and has a long history, as established by Numbers. Fuller asserted that it was invented for anti-creationism purposes in the 1980's.
2. Numbers shows that MN was not, as Fuller asserts, adopted by scientists as an attempt to impose thought control. It was adopted because it was successful in numerous independent fields of natural philosophy — Numbers reviews this development in physics, meteorology, earth science, medicine, biology, etc., in his essay. Strike 2 for Fuller.
3. Since Numbers establishes that MN goes back centuries, it can't be "a bit of PC pseudo-philosophy tailor-made for our times." Strike 3 for Fuller.
C'mon macht, Fuller is full of it on this issue. Admit it.
Comment by Nick Matzke — March 21, 2006 @ 7:33 pm
March 21st, 2006 at 8:05 pm
1) He didn't say "that we now call." But I'll give you this, since I wasn't refering to it in the first place.
2) Fuller never said it was adopted by scientists in order to impose thought control. He says it is a form of thought control, but he never said it was adopted because of that. Perhaps it was a co-opted function.
3) Why not? I read it as an over-the-top way of saying that scientists today use it as a "safe" way to accept the theory of evolution but still hold onto belief in God. IOW, Fuller thinks MN presupposes philosophical naturalism. Numbers certainly didn't focus on this philosophical issue, since he was only looking at the historical issue.
Perhaps he is. All I'm arguing here, though, is that nothing in Numbers' essay shows us he is full of it.
Comment by macht — March 21, 2006 @ 8:05 pm
March 21st, 2006 at 8:48 pm
This reminds me of the Kitzmiller trial, when during cross-examination Behe tried to argue that Pandas did not deny common ancestry. We'd put up a Pandas quote denying common ancestry, and he would concoct some spin to attempt to explain it away. No matter how clear the quote, Behe would try to spin it. After that episode, Behe's credibility with the judge was shot, only 90 minutes into his cross-examination, because it was clear he would rather spin things than concede a simple point.
Similar events occurred throughout the Behe cross. And people wonder why the judge felt moved to go after ID broadly…
But hey, suit yourself. More ammo for us ID skeptics.
Comment by Nick Matzke — March 21, 2006 @ 8:48 pm
March 21st, 2006 at 9:17 pm
I'll gladly concede a point if I have one to concede. As of yet, you've given me no reason to. You are the one who is trying to spin Fuller's words into saying something they aren't. For example, Fuller never said that MN was "adopted by scientists as an attempt to impose thought control." He said it is a form of thought control. The reasons for adopting it could be numerous (and, indeed, Numbers gives plenty of people's reasons for adopting it). Now, if you want, we can argue about whether it actually is a form of thought control, but I don't think we'll find anything in Numbers that will help us come to a conclusion on that point. And on point 3, if you think I'm misreading what he is saying, please explain why. I think he is pretty clear, though, about what he means in the part you didn't quote ("The answer of course, is that "˜methodological naturalism', unlike metaphysical naturalism, is afraid of upsetting Christians who want to be evolutionists and believe in a monotheistic god too"). This is pretty much what I said about Fuller thinking that "scientists today use it as a "safe" way to accept the theory of evolution but still hold onto belief in God."
You can call that "spin" all you want, but I call that "repeating what Fuller said."
Comment by macht — March 21, 2006 @ 9:17 pm
March 21st, 2006 at 9:46 pm
Oh right, so what Fuller meant to say that MN was adopted for legitimate practical reasons by Christians hundreds of years ago (this is what Numbers says), but then in the 1980's it magically became nothing but "thought control" and "PC pseudo-philosophy tailor-made for our times."
I guess at least one TelicThoughts blogger does believe in "sudden emergence" after all…
Comment by Nick Matzke — March 21, 2006 @ 9:46 pm
March 21st, 2006 at 9:57 pm
I don't know what he meant to say, but I've already repeatedly told you what he did say.
Comment by macht — March 21, 2006 @ 9:57 pm
March 21st, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Either that's what he said, or he is contradicted by Numbers. Pick one.
Comment by Nick Matzke — March 21, 2006 @ 10:47 pm
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:53 am
Don't resort to false dichotomies. It's unbecoming. If person A doesn't say something, it is hard to contradict something that person B does say. IOW, if person B says X and person A says neither X nor not-X, he hasn't contradicted person B. The fact that you happen to think person A meant not-X doesn't make it so.
Fuller doesn't say how or why MN was adopted at all. His reference to thought control had to do with what happens when supernaturalism isn't given "its due" in schools. It had nothing to do with how it was adopted.
His bit about "PC pseudo-philosophy …" was in reference to why he thinks modern naturalists don't defend philosophical naturalism. This is obvious a philosophical point that Fuller is making (he thinks MN requires PN), not an historical point.
Comment by macht — March 22, 2006 @ 12:53 am
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:47 am
He says MN didn't exist before the 1980's. That's why he says,
It's quite clear that Fuller thinks MN was invented in the 1980's in order to combat the creationists. He says the position was just "made up."
Look, it's very simple. If Fuller says MN was both:
(a) made up, and
(b) didn't exist before the 1980's
…then Fuller is saying MN was made up in the 1980's!
But in fact Numbers shows that Fuller is wrong, and the position is much, much older. It could still be wrong, but it should be acknowledged as a venerable tradition.
Look, I can accept a lot of things — maybe Fuller was hot under the collar after battling his critics on the blogs for weeks, maybe he would be reasonable and alter his position once he read Numbers's essay…but his words here, on their face, are exactly what I said: wrong, and so badly wrong as to be ridiculous.
Comment by Nick Matzke — March 22, 2006 @ 1:47 am
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:31 am
About 10 posts or so ago, I said "I'll give you this, since I wasn't refering to it in the first place." (And you weren't referring to it in the original post either.) I am right on the other two quotes, though.
Comment by macht — March 22, 2006 @ 2:31 am
March 22nd, 2006 at 4:30 am
Hi Nick,
Do you think Steve Fuller is part of "the ID movement at large"
Comment by Krauze — March 22, 2006 @ 4:30 am
March 22nd, 2006 at 7:03 pm
In my view, Matzke's entire post is an excerise in irrelevancy. It could even be called a red herring. It matters not one whit whether MN has been around for 10 years, 100 years or even a 1000. The issue with MN is the artificial constraint it places on science, not how long scientists have used it as a rule of thumb. It is impossible to enforce MN without making a presupposition about how the cosmos came to be. Under MN the ONLY causal story allowed in science is a chain of natural cause and effect. But how can can we know scientifically that the cosmos is, in fact, a closed system of nothing but natural cause and effect? If we don't know that that is true, then it is at least logically possible that some extra-natural forces or intelligence might have played a role in bringing about some parts of the cosmos, including life on earth. MN ensures that science couldn't even see that let alone incorporate it into our scientific understanding of the history of cosmos. That comes pretty darn close to importing full blown philosophical naturalism into the heart of science.
Rather than complain about guys like Fuller, I'd like to see Matzke explaiin how MN can avoid becoming PN. Much tougher to do that…and I know of no one who ever has.
Comment by DonaldM — March 22, 2006 @ 7:03 pm
March 22nd, 2006 at 7:20 pm
I wouldn't call it "irrelevant." I'd call it "trivial." If you notice about half way down the comments he defines MN as a "preference for natural causes." If that is all he means, then the post is rather pointless because, well, everybody agrees that modern science has a preference for natural causes.
Comment by macht — March 22, 2006 @ 7:20 pm
March 23rd, 2006 at 5:27 am
Yes, I read the post. Matzke strives for accuracy, but my experience with Holbling is that he fails to understand biology and tries to substitute philosophical meanderings to justify his position.
I guess you couldn't find the evidence I asked about to suggeset Holbling isn't an ID advocate — I see no hint of it. The post you linked to in which Holbling "criticized" ID was pretty weak tea. His post completely misses the more serious ethical problems of most ID arguments, and it offers no great light on why anyone would find ID to be anything other than an interesting, legitimate argument suitable for polite company and innocent children.
Do you guys ever pay attention to what I say? It doesn't appear so.
Comment by edarrell — March 23, 2006 @ 5:27 am
March 23rd, 2006 at 8:18 am
Ed:
Ah yes, modern day McCarthyism at work. It doesn't matter that Ed has no evidence that Hobling is an ID advocate. What matters is that he couldn't find the evidence to suggeset Holbling isn't an ID advocate.
Let's mimic Ed's witch hunting skills. Ed, can you provide a dozen or so posts in which you critique the animal rights terrorists and support Oxford's right to build a science lab? After all, it's difficult to make the case that Edarrell is not an ALF Usual Suspect.
Come to think of it, perhaps Ed can provide a dozen or so posts where he has critiqued Osama bin Ladin and Islamofascism while he is at it.
Comment by MikeGene — March 23, 2006 @ 8:18 am
March 23rd, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Not really.
Comment by macht — March 23, 2006 @ 3:49 pm
March 23rd, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Edarrell asks: "Do you guys ever pay attention to what I say?"
An ironic question, coming from someone who's been here since we first launched the blog, nearly a year ago, and who still thinks we're part of the political games about ID.
Comment by Krauze — March 23, 2006 @ 4:11 pm
March 23rd, 2006 at 10:47 pm
I point out that no one offered much of a case that Holbling isn't an ID advocate, and Mike Gene calls that argument "McCarthyism." Well, only if MG means Charlie McCarthy. Pointing out that there is no evidence to support a claim is quite the opposite of McCarthyism, which functions on whole cloth prevarication.
The blog where Holbling posts has defended ID with the classic creationism/ID arguments in the past, and taken unkindly to corrections. I see absolutely no reason that it wouldn't qualify as an ID usual suspect.
Mike Gene does know about McCarthy, though — look at the last paragraph of MG's post. It's a good imitation of the genre.
Comment by edarrell — March 23, 2006 @ 10:47 pm
March 23rd, 2006 at 10:57 pm
LOL. Ed chokes on his own medicine. We're supposed to believe that Holbling is an ID advocate unless someone can come up with a dozen blogs where Holbling is screaming against ID. But if we apply Ed's witch hunting tactics to Ed, he whines.
Taste you own medicine, witch hunter. And show us the dozen blogs where you harshly condemn the animal rights terrorists.
Comment by MikeGene — March 23, 2006 @ 10:57 pm
March 23rd, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Ed, Did you read what Macht posted? He writes, "It would be pretty difficult to call Hugo (who has written an excellent introductory series to philosophy, BTW) a member of the "ID movement at large." I've never seen him write anything that criticizes evolutionary theory, I've never seen him write that he accepts the basic ideas of ID, he has criticized ID, and he has flat out denied being a part of the ID movement." If you want to paint Holbling as an ID advocate, it is your burden to demonstrate this. And what is your evidence? "The blog where Holbling posts has defended ID with the classic creationism/ID arguments in the past, and taken unkindly to corrections." Unless you can show Holbling was the author of those posts, your "evidence" is nothing more than McCarthy-like innuendo.
Comment by MikeGene — March 23, 2006 @ 11:33 pm
March 24th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
MG said:
Well, if you stick to what I said, you don't need to go into such hystrionics. What I said is that it is difficult to make a case that Holbling is not an ID advocate. His site has featured several discussions of ID — all of them favorable to ID, none favoring evolution. Several of the discussions feature the standard, ID-movement claims, which are ardently and adamantly defended. I think it's difficult to paint somebody who writes at such a site as something other than an ID defender.
Am I wrong? Go ahead. Make the case.
To the slightly further question of whether he's really one of the ID usual suspects, I think it's difficult again to count him out. Is there evidence enough to convict him of being cool on ID? I don't think so.
But instead of anyone making a cool argument based on evidence, I get a lot of vitriol and invective. That's a pretty good sign, usually, that the substance is lacking. That's what I said.
In the discussion and distortion of what I said, it's been alleged that Telic Thoughts is not an ID-friendly site. Right. And Billy Graham isn't a preacher.
Comment by edarrell — March 24, 2006 @ 8:57 pm
March 24th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Ah yes, the logic of the witch hunter "“ guilty until proven innocent. Look Ed, you can't come up with any solid evidence that Holbling is an ID advocate, so what do you do? You tell us that someone else on the same blog promotes ID and argue:
Looks like modern day McCarthyism to me.
I don't know Holbling nor do I follow that blog. But the burden is on he who proposes. And that means you. If you want to propose that Holbling is an ID advocate, you'll need more than winks-n-nods, along with innuendo propped up with guilt-by-association. Then again, witch hunters typically don't need more than this.
BTW Ed, it is also difficult to make the case that you are not a secret supporter of the animal rights terrorists. You can't even pass your own test.
Comment by MikeGene — March 24, 2006 @ 9:37 pm
March 26th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
MG, you don't appear to have a grip on what McCarthyism is, or how it works. Stick to biology — you're tone deaf in politics and ethics.
Comment by edarrell — March 26, 2006 @ 5:42 pm
March 26th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Perhaps it would be more fair to note Holbling's site as "ID-friendly." He's no skeptic of ID, IMHO, and he's critical of scientists and evolution using ID-friendly arguments and claims. He's addressed ID perhaps a half-dozen times, friendly to ID on each occasion. I have not yet found any posts where he supports evolution theory or the teaching of it.
In reviewing how heated Holbling has gotten in the past when his blog was tagged an ID-blog, one has to wonder just what all the hypersensitivity is.
In the end, ID really is much more a philosophical issue than an issue for biology or any other science, don't you think? Perhaps if we were to note ID as an issue in philosophy, Hobling wouldn't have such difficulties with being linked to it, yes?
Comment by edarrell — March 26, 2006 @ 7:15 pm
March 27th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Against my better judgement (i.e. egged on by a friend…) I suppose I should say something. I'm sorry that readers of this blog have to put up with Ed's strange quest to prove that I'm "ID-friendly" and his determination to demonstrate his functional illiteracy. I had to turn on the "moderate all comments" function at my "ID blog" in order to stop him spamming me with increasingly ridiculous remarks, my favourite being the classic "do we wish to leave a legacy of censorship to our children?" in reply to a discussion of the philosophy of archaeology.
Anyway, I don't get "hypersensitive" to ravings like this but I do wonder why some people feel the need to see things in such black-or-white terms (or "you're with us or against us", which I suppose is more accurate). Apparently I need to preface my writings on the philosophy of science, such as they are, with a disclaimer that I remain stauchly within the church and tolerate no heresy, which is a ridiculous requirement regardless which "side" it comes from. If I want to comment on the demarcation problem and critique simplistic criteria used in debate on this issue then it makes no difference at all to the content of my bluster whether or not I'm batting for the correct team or pay the appropriate marks of respect to my grandparents. If I want to say "unfortunately there are problems with falsificationism" then surely I don't need to add "but don't suppose for one moment that my unflinching support for evolutionary theory / ID / tourism Jamaica / the Canterbury Crusaders has wavered"; but it seems that I do if I'm not to be dismissed outright. Of course, that is probably the point: it's easy to avoid taking someone seriously and according them basic charity of interpretation if they can be safely ignored as a heathen of whatever stripe. If I'm talking through my hat (as I'm confident I am) then it should be a easy matter to dissect my bluster on its own terms, without speculating as to which clubs I belong to or observing that my apparent unwillingness to discuss fresh fruit in diets surely implies my being a stooge of the fast food industry. What I get from Ed (and a few others who are not yet in his league, mercifully) is instead handwaving insistence that I support ID and am clearly – most assuredly – wrong, unless I'm talking about philosophy, soccer, aesthetics or the many other subjects I tarnish forever by associating myself with. It seems I don't hear from them unless I cross the ID rubicon and leave out that all-important disclaimer.
I can't decide if I should be laughing or crying when I read Ed's comments. Probably both, I guess.
Comment by HH — March 27, 2006 @ 2:29 pm
March 27th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Hi, HH, Ed's a raving loon who haunts this blog and a number of related ones on a regular basis. His foolishness and dishonesty are immediately obvious to such a degree that nobody takes him seriously, so don't let it get to you. We just keep him around on this blog for s***s and giggles.
Comment by Deuce — March 27, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
March 27th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Btw, I'm beginning to think we ought to give Ed the boot, guys. I know we want to support the free exchange of ideas and all (especially hilarious ones), but don't you think we ought to draw the line at harboring a supporter of terrorism?
Comment by Deuce — March 27, 2006 @ 3:15 pm
March 27th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Good point, Deuce. In fact, by allowing him on board, won't Ed be able to accuse us of supporting his pro-terrorism agenda?
Comment by Krauze — March 27, 2006 @ 3:30 pm
March 28th, 2006 at 12:51 am
I don't think we should ban Ed. I think it is very instructive for Telic Thougts readers to witness a real, live witch hunter at work. Many witch hunters do a better job disguising their witch hunting. But not Ed. In fact, the similarities between Ed's approach and McCarthyism are uncanny (despite his cognitive dissonance) if you begin to write them out. Hell, the Witch Hunter is even using a gravitar to wrap himself in the American flag! LOL.
My favorite Ed quote: "Why would anyone choose to "remain objective and analytical" when evil shows up? It's time to take a stand, MG. That's the point."
Look guys, he is here to take a stand against Eeevil. Remember, we ARE the Forces of Darkness in his Enlightened Eyes.
Comment by MikeGene — March 28, 2006 @ 12:51 am
March 28th, 2006 at 1:07 am
Hi Mike,
I agree wholeheartedly. I have no intention of banning Ed, I was just joking about his witch-hunter attitude. And judging from the smiley, I think Deuce was too.
Comment by Krauze — March 28, 2006 @ 1:07 am
March 28th, 2006 at 5:31 am
HH, you could be learning.
Reminds me of the old lefty line about Nixon-Agnew: "The majority is not silent, the government is deaf."
If you don't want to discuss archaeology, don't post on archaeology.
Comment by edarrell — March 28, 2006 @ 5:31 am
March 28th, 2006 at 5:33 am
Krauze, I've taken the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the U.S. four times. Terrorism? You're on the other side, my friend, when you make such rash, crass remarks.
Comment by edarrell — March 28, 2006 @ 5:33 am
March 28th, 2006 at 6:45 am
Hmm, two more posts from Ed, and no full-throated denunciations of terrorism. He says Krauze is on the "other side" but he doesn't specifically say what side that is, so I think it's safe to assume Ed's working for the bad guys! And come to think of it, he hasn't said anything about pedophilia either! Didn't I once hear that Ed is a schoolteacher? We'd better report him before he strikes again!
Comment by Deuce — March 28, 2006 @ 6:45 am
March 28th, 2006 at 9:19 am
My, my. It looks as if Ed doesn't like the taste of his own medicine.
Comment by Krauze — March 28, 2006 @ 9:19 am
March 29th, 2006 at 5:29 am
The flag alone is a "full-throated" denunciation of terrorism. Never let it be said that creationists are not consistent, missing or ignoring evidence in all fields of argument . . .
Comment by edarrell — March 29, 2006 @ 5:29 am
March 29th, 2006 at 6:11 am
Only now, almost a week later, does Ed come up with evidence that (under his own criteria) he's not a terrorist. But Ed, where's the "dozen or so posts" in which you criticize the terrorists?
Comment by Krauze — March 29, 2006 @ 6:11 am
March 29th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Krauze, you miss the point again: I've not blogged on terrorists. Holbling has blogged on intelligent design.
How many times can you pretend to miss the point? (You are pretending, right?) Or is missing the point so ingrained in ID methodology that it extends to all arguments?
Comment by edarrell — March 29, 2006 @ 6:21 pm
March 29th, 2006 at 10:36 pm
Ed:
And you have blogged obsessively about ID. Is that because you think ID is a greater threat than terrorism?
Comment by MikeGene — March 29, 2006 @ 10:36 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 7:02 am
No.
Comment by edarrell — April 2, 2006 @ 7:02 am