Our About Us Description
by MikeGeneIf memory serves me right, we are coming up on our 2 year anniversary next month. As such, perhaps it is a good time to take a second look at our About Us description.
If the mention of flagella makes you spin, if you're a hopeful monster for mutations, and if you think that there's nothing that Kant can't, then Telic Thoughts is the blog for you. Here, we will explore intelligent design and the issues surrounding it, hopefully in a pleasant and fruitful atmosphere.
I'd say we have been relatively successful here. Yet whether TT truly is a "pleasant and fruitful atmosphere" is something each reader must decide for himself. Of course it's not perfect, but I think "intelligent design and the issues surrounding it" are among the most heated and contentious issues out there. Trying to create a place where both sides can talk to each other more often than shout at each other has always been a rather ambitious goal.
Where we fall a little short, IMO, is on postings that "explore intelligent design." But I view things through the prism of a certain upcoming book and thus I expect that shortcoming to be addressed soon. 
We are a group of individuals, coming from diverse backgrounds and not speaking for any organization, who have found common ground around teleological concepts, including intelligent design.
This is simply a statement of fact. The contributors to TT come from a wide range of political and religious beliefs and I would think that rather obvious to readers. Remember, that most of us found each other on the ARN and Brainstorm forums. Since then, many of us noticed/enjoyed the blogs of Macht and Bradford and reached out to them to join our blog. I'm certainly quite happy that they joined. Our last addition was Bilbo, someone I also knew from ARN. I've always enjoyed his independent, maverick streak and thus lobbied to have him join TT and I am pleased to have him on board. As such, we can now say that the first blog to officially criticize the Design Matrix was Telic Thoughts! 
We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides. We hope this blog will provide a small voice that helps rectify this situation.
Here is the one part that might cause trouble for some, so let me explain something. Keep in mind that a) most of us met at the ARN forum and b) this was written pre-Dover. As such, the "political advocacy" we had in mind was the mega-debate about inserting ID into the public school curriculum as part of a culture war. Since we did not agree with this agenda, and we were tired of the way it soaked up so much attention on the ARN forum (and various blogs that were popping up), we set out to explore and discuss ID in an environment that was relatively free from this noise. And if you notice, TT has not been a voice to insert ID or "teach the controversy." So we have upheld this description as intended.
However, since then, a new movement has come onto the radar screen "“ the New Atheist Movement. Here things become complicated because there is extensive overlap among the critics of ID and the members of this new socio-political movement. Currently, I, for example, focus on the new movement primarily to draw out its implications in the post-wedge world. For example, the parallels between the ID Movement and New Atheist movement are becoming increasingly intriguing. Furthermore, many of us have for years endured the claims of ID critics who have postured as unbiased judges interested only in "the evidence" and in "defending science." The emergence of the New Atheist movement calls much of that posturing into serious question.
Perhaps we should re-write this section of our introduction. Then again, perhaps a certain book will make all this discussion moot. Thus, in conclusion, I would say that we should stick with the introduction as-is, but keep an eye on developments over the next few months to see if modification is merited.
April 16th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
This had better be a damn good book, Mike…
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — April 16, 2007 @ 11:09 pm
April 16th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
The About Us description strikes me as very well worded. In fact, the author shows good copywriting skills in demand by enterprises wanting to sell their products or services. Not a bad back-up talent to possess.
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2007 @ 11:10 pm
April 17th, 2007 at 6:51 am
Hi WFO,
All I can say at this point is that I personally think it is much better than anything I have posted to the Internet and someone I don't know liked it.
Comment by MikeGene — April 17, 2007 @ 6:51 am
April 17th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Hi Mike,
Well done!
Hold a hearing reaffirming the About Us text as it is and let my own sense of ethics force me to resolve my own conflict. For what it is worth, here is my suggested wording"¦
If the mention of flagella makes you spin, if you're a hopeful monster for mutations, and if you think that there's nothing that Kant can't, then Telic Thoughts is the blog for you. Here, we support intelligent design by exploring the issues surrounding it, hopefully in a pleasant and fruitful atmosphere.
We are a group of individuals, coming from diverse backgrounds and not speaking for any organization, who have found common ground around teleological concepts, including intelligent design. We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides. We hope this blog will provide a small voice that helps rectify this situation and welcome opinions from all sides as long as they are respectful of maintaining a pleasant and fruitful atmosphere.
If your book is ushering in a dawn of a new and improved TT then this is the appropriate time freshen up two-year old text. If for no other reason than to change "Here, we will explore"¦" to "Here, we explore…".
I believe the changes I am proposing make it clearer what someone should expect when visiting Telic Thoughts. As you know, the expectations I derived from the old wording did not match what I found.
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 17, 2007 @ 11:39 am
April 17th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I'm not a part of TT, but if I were, I would say in the About US section:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 17, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
April 17th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Mike Gene:
My criticism is not of "the Book." If there is or will be such a book, I'm sure it will be worth every penny and then some, and worth two or more readings.
I see the New Atheists as being a threat, but in a different way: If "ornery" atheists such as PZ continue to identify themselves with politically liberal views, then they will stir up a reaction among political conservatives, who will then advocate more strongly for ID in public schools to counter the threat of the New Atheists. Which is what most people in the ID movement probably want to see happen.
Comment by Bilbo — April 17, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
April 17th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Hi all,
A minor update, I suggest we don't need two pleasant and fruitful atmospheres, so…
If the mention of flagella makes you spin, if you're a hopeful monster for mutations, and if you think that there's nothing that Kant can't, then Telic Thoughts is the blog for you. Here, we support intelligent design by exploring the issues surrounding it in a conducive setting of mutual respect.
We are a group of individuals, coming from diverse backgrounds and not speaking for any organization, who have found common ground around teleological concepts, including intelligent design. We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides. We hope this blog will provide a small voice that helps rectify this situation and welcome opinions from all sides as long as they are respectful and help maintain a pleasant and fruitful atmosphere.
If anyone has suggestions for improving this, please let them be known.
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 17, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
April 17th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
WAY TO GO YOU FUNDIE, SCIENCE-HATING, GODDIDIT "POOF"-LOVING, IDiot, CREATIONIST IN A CHEAP TUXEDO.
Comment by chunkdz — April 17, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
April 17th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Thanks for the suggestions, TP, but as I mentioned above, I'm for leaving it as is. Bradford, a fellow contributor agrees. As for the rest of the TT crew, I've seen no interest in making any changes.
Anyway, without clear consensus on things like this, I think it fair to take a comparative approach. For example, scienceblogs.com is much, much larger than Telic Thoughts. Considering their extensive reach, how do they describe themselves? .
The expectations one might derive from this wording does not match what I find over there. There should be something about bashing religion, bashing Bush, and promoting Atheism.
Comment by MikeGene — April 17, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
April 17th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Hi Mike,
I do not care what other Blogs do. I would think you would not care either.
As I hinted in my opening comment. You have manuevered me into a position that, ethically, I can not ignore. You have even manuevered me into giving the farewell speech I indicated I wouldn't do had you simply told me I was unwelcome.
In a Fair Hearing, the person presiding over the hearing does not offer his/her opinion until after others have.
In a Fair Hearing, the side suggesting a change gets to present the proposal prior to discussion and vote.
In a Fair Hearing, the timing isn't such as to make the hearing "moot".
What just happened wasn't a Fair Hearing.
I must admit, you are clever, Mike. I look forward to reading your book.
I respectively request my comment priviledges be revoked. That way if something changes and I attempt to comment in the future, I will know I am unwelcome if the comment does not show up (I will keep it to myself if that happens).
Anyone wishing to communicate with me can do so here.
Regards,
Thought Provoker
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 17, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
April 17th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Hi TP,
What did I write?
In light of the facts that a) I see problems with your proposed changes and b) it is unlikely we'd ever arrive at a perfect intro, it makes sense to see what others are doing. As such, I can say that while our intro may not be perfect, it is much better than the popular, respected, and professional scienceblog.com.
I didn't realize there was any hearing. I was just again walking the extra mile to consider a complaint and offer clarifications. It occurred to me that this made sense given we're almost 2 years old.
Comment by MikeGene — April 17, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
April 17th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
TP,
Maybe I'm just obtuse, but I'm having trouble seeing what your complaint is. That TT doesn't explicitly say they welcome opinions from all sides?
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — April 17, 2007 @ 7:52 pm
April 17th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Hi Bilbo,
Indeed. In fact, I sometimes wonder if that is exactly what the New Atheists are trying to encourage. Look at the Dover decision from PZ's end. What did he and Dawkins get from the Dover decision? A federal judge who ruled that science cannot address the existence of God and the removal of a very useful rallying cry for them. If the decision had gone the other way, it would have been much easier for PZ and Dawkins to recruit more moderates into their extremist camp. Now he's left with nothing more to gripe about than PR statements from the DI, a creationist museum, books, and the appeasers.
Comment by MikeGene — April 17, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
April 18th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Yes, I think the extremists on both sides would like to see this turn into a real culture war, with all of us in the middle forced to pick a side. If only we could throw both sides into a room and let them duke it out, while the rest of us just did our usual comparatively mild-mannered debating.
Comment by Bilbo — April 18, 2007 @ 5:13 pm