You're extrapolating beyond the evidence again. Oh, yeah, I could have constructed that last sentence better: Wolpe misses with his premise, and creationists who claim that premise as a foundation for their arguments are off the rails from the start.

I don't think so. Ed begins his criticism as follows:

Wolpe's premise is in gross error.

Of course, Ed fails to a) identify the premise and b) show the error, but that's not important now (I'm not sure what he was seeing, as he seems to have thought that Wolpe did not know about institutional reviews).
What is important here is that he clearly is clearly focused on Wolpe. Ed then ends his short commentary with this:

When creationists start with absolutely erroneous premises, they arrive at good results only randomly. In this case, Wolpe misses.

Ed clearly links Wolpe to creationists. He harkens back to the first sentence and makes the connection obvious with "In this case" - targeting Wolpe.

I think most reasonable people can see that Ed did label Wolpe a creationist. Of course, I am a nice guy who is willing to accept a charitable interpretation. Ed, however, does not allow for charitable interpretations when he disagrees with us. Does he think he is entitled to live by rules different from those he imposes on others?

Now, what is most ironic, is that it is Ed turns around and next extrapolates beyond the evidence to attack me:

The simple fact is that Wolpe's article is no basis for any polemic against scientists, and in particular he makes no brief against Darwin. Whether he is creationist or not, your emphasis of his sentence out of context to suggest that scientists don't deal with ethics is in error.

Readers are invited to check out my blog to determine if my blog was a "polemic against scientists" that cites Wolpe making a "brief against Darwin," and arguing that scientists don't "deal with ethics."

I trust that most people can see that Ed did label Wolpe as a creationist in a knee-jerk fashion and that I did not write up some "polemic against scientists." Since I'm getting short on time, and have no desire to pretend otherwise, the thread is closed.

The simple fact is that Wolpe's article is no basis for any polemic against scientists, and in particular he makes no brief against Darwin. Whether he is creationist or not, your emphasis of his sentence out of context to suggest that scientists don't deal with ethics is in error.

Yes, read Wolpe. He does point out specifically that the biological sciences deal with ethical issues all the time. Why he overstates to the point of misstating his premise, I do not know.

But the reality is that biological research is thick with biologists considering ethical issues, something that few ID researchers seem to understand, or be willing to undertake.

This statement has not been rebutted, and is still critical: I wrote, "Researchers in biology go through more rigorous ethical discussion of their work than any other profession, by law. Anyone engaged in research dealing with human subjects must go through an institutional review board for approval. Almost all research done on human health is reviewed multiple times."

I merely pointed out the premise was in error; the knee-jerk response was then made by others.

Did you catch that? The ID critic just labeled Wolpe as a creationist!

I see a trend with the use of sloppy labels, the use of any label that is disparaging regardless of whether it's true. Like "liar", ironically.

Newton's Rape Manual

Mike wrote:

Creationists Everywhere

Creationist to the right of us, creationist to the left of us.

Wait! Left?

Even prior to the post-wedge world in 1997 we have:

The New Creationism: Biology Under Attack.

Here is an account of anti-Darwinian anthropology and sociology departments being labeled creationist. These are not IDers, but academics being labeled creationists. Anything seen evil is called creationist!

Like their fundamentalist Christian counterparts, the most extreme antibiologists suggest that humans occupy a status utterly different from and clearly "above" that of all other living beings. And, like the religious fundamentalists, the new academic creationists defend their stance as if all of human dignity — and all hope for the future — were at stake.

The new secular creationism emerged as an understandable reaction to excess.
….
The deepest motives behind this new secular version of creationism are understandable.
….
secular creationist academics seem to have replaced the church as the leading opponents of Darwinism

The new creationism is not simply a case of well-intended politics gone awry; it represents a grave misunderstanding of biology and science generally.

….

Or how about this recent (2005) blog where the author takes a radical femminist named Sandra Harding (who regards Newtonian Mechanics as a Rape Manual) and then relates her "science is a metaphor for rape" theory to ID theory:

Harding is arguing along the lines we often see from Intelligent Designers. They often position their arguments in this form: If irreducable complexity cannot be explained by the theory of evolution, then evolution is an invalid theory.
….
Harding, by arguing sexist bias and equivalence of the metaphors may be arguing that if we do not accept the rape & torture metaphor then we should not accept the nature/machine metaphor. However, since we do accept the nature/machine metaphor then we must accept the rape & torture metaphor. This is a logical contraposition and it doesn't, in the least, as with the Intelligent Designers, address the validity of her argument.

Ok, I didn't try to uscrew the convolution here, but somehow I couldn't stop laughing.

Also, here is an essay about Gould and Lewontin being Left-wing creationists! The Conflict Within - The Left's Version of Creationism

Salvador