Hey, my "ppm" is almost exactly the same as Mike Gene's - coincidence? (Never mind that mine is also almost exactly the same as Mung's.) And, most of my posts at ARN have been of the "one-liner" variety, sometimes even venturing into "two-liner" territory. And they've all been brilliant, regardless of length.

I don't think one should be accused of ARNism until one's ppm breaks the 100 ppm barrier. Anyone more than double that probably should be committed forthwith or henceforth, or something.

Perhaps one of these sad creatures will finally get the monkey off their back and start a 12 step support group for his fellow sufferers.

Let's see, a cursory glance at the antievolution ARNies reveals the same postaholic behavior Harris believes requires treatment:

Mike Gene - Posts: 4804 | Registered: Feb 2000 - 75 ppm*

Mung - Posts: 2767 | Registered: May 2002 - 73 ppm

Salvador Cordova - Posts: 5429 | Registered: Nov 2003 - 271 ppm

leonard - Posts: 7308 | Registered: Aug 2001 - 152 ppm

nobody (AKA Mod 6) - Posts: 5510 | Registered: Dec 2001 - 100 ppm

Douglas - Posts: 4223 | Registered: Nov 2000 - 74 ppm

Ilíon - Posts: 3142 | Registered: Feb 2003 - 105 ppm

mturner - Posts: 6185 | Registered: Jul 2001 - 129 ppm

joy - Posts: 1961 | Registered: Oct 2002 - 60 ppm

Comparing these averages with The Pixie's:

The Pixie - Posts: 1917 | Registered: Jan 2002 - 46 ppm

As Stu derisively wrote:

The problem must be faced and admitted. "Hello, I'm The Pixie, and I'm an ARNoholic."

Do Mike Gene, the Deuce, Guts, bipod and Joy really want to exclude the contributions of someone who is quite clearly interested in "˜civil discourse' about telic thoughts, simply to protect Mr. Petermann from legitimate questions, including those about his plans for a "˜new religion'?

We don't delete each others posts here. Nobody needs protecting.

This is not a "˜counter post' from Steve's typical enemy. It is rather an appeal to more careful and respectful communication.

OK, I'm all for that. Let's give it a try.

Do Mike Gene, the Deuce, Guts, bipod and Joy really want to exclude the contributions of someone who is quite clearly interested in 'civil discourse' about telic thoughts, simply to protect Mr. Petermann from legitimate questions, including those about his plans for a 'new religion'? Better take off the links to his site if you don't want such topics discussed in the context of telic thoughts. Otherwise, it's misleading for readers to believe there are authentic claims to knowledge and sincerity to discuss them coming from this place.

This is not a 'counter post' from Steve's typical enemy. It is rather an appeal to more careful and respectful communication.

g. arago

p.s. If the management is disatisfied with my posting, they can please send me an e-mail saying so out of respect for time spent writing to their site.

It's too bad that your debate style is such that only those who relish pissing contests would want to engage you. You seem like an intelligent person but your non sequitor presumptions, condescending tone, and constant ad hominen shuttle you quickly to the "don't pay any attention to" category. I suppose you have been successful sucking in those who feel they need to counter your personal assaults but I'll pass. There are far too many other individuals who really are serious about civil debate to waste my time with you.

p.s. I'm fully expecting a counter post from you that I'm fleeing the battlefield out of fear, intimidation, or something else. Oh well.

Your statement should probably read "I haven't yet seen any definitive event…" and include hearing, not just seeing such that you may believe if your ears did hear the right words. The electric age brings sounds as much as sights into our sensitive expanse. Add that you may act if Spirit moves you.

The 'evolution paradigm' (in a post-modern view) is more than only about teleology. It is also about origins, human purpose and meaning(s). Though, yes, there is both causality and also effects to confront for its overhaul or overcoming.

"the question of ultimate causation is really the determinative factor for the fundamental question of intelligent design or not." - S. Petermann

You didn't address my 'for starters' suggestion that "the folly with which some specialized scientists pretend evolution is only about biology or chemistry or botany or geology is a myth that needs to be dispelled." Would you still wish to address this, as someone interested in Science, Philosophy and Theology, who may be able to speak on the present hierarchy of disciplines in the academy? You are not a biologist, so there's no need put a biological science ahead of others, say psychology or anthropology since those disciplines are highly influenced by evolutionary theory too.

Apparently you subscribe to one-dimensionality (or narrow dimensionality)of evolution as does Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Wells, Nelson and others who haven't yet dealt with the difference between human-made and non-human-made things. What evolves and what doesn't? It will not take a natural scientist or philosopher of science to understand and express them-self on such things so that a solution to the crisis may become available. Naturalist-in, natuaralistic theist-out doesn't appear to contain the proofs.

At least, this is what it reads on your website:

"recently an intelligent design movement has sprung up that claims the Darwinian explanation is scientifically inadequate to explain the biological complexity we see in nature."

Please don't refuse the insight when it comes to you because you are stuck looking at biology (or at ID's repatriated theories + information era) instead of listening interdisciplinarily, or because of rejecting or whitewashing ancient ideas for the lure of post-modern relativity and pluralism. These things should not make one seek a 'new religion,' but rather to find what is new in what is old. Likely, you still have it in you, whether you've lost it or not.

Btw, was it 'religious studies' or a particular traditional 'theology' you studied as a student before becoming a 'design engineer'? Existentially compelling the overhauling of evolution must be, otherwise my statement would ring hollow. And coming from this swallow, hollow or numbing it could never set us free.

Best wishes for not getting swallowed in the sea,

Arago

Here comes the irony: it will take only one paper, or a series of papers to completely overhaul the "˜evolution paradigm' about which the poster edarrel, armed with an American Flag icon, speaks.

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on this. The ID hypothesis is so ambiguous scientifically I don't see any definitive event shifting the paradigm. Teleological arguments are notoriously indeterminate. History has shown this and I believe it will continue to be so. Since teleology is ultimately based on causation, there will never be some seminal scientific insight that is not without reasonable counter arguments.

If there is a shift it will not be momentus because scientific teleological arguments do not fit well within the current accepted scientific method. Instead it will be more of a subtle cultural shift. If that happens science will follow.

Here's a short sample of books on evolution: Evolution and Anthropology (1959), The Evolution of an Evolutionist (1975), Evolution as a Religion (1985), Evolution: an Evolving Theory (1993), Evolution and Biocomputation (1995), Freedom Evolves (2003), Evolution: the Disguised Friend of Faith? (2004), add to those books that focus primarily on Darwin though not only evolution; Darwin among the poets (1932), Darwin among the machines (1997), Evolution after Darwin (1960).

"Is evolution not [also] an interdisciplinary concept in our contemporary scientific milieu?" - g. arago (question to W. Dembski, UD, 05-07-05)

Here comes the irony: it will take only one paper, or a series of papers to completely overhaul the 'evolution paradigm' about which the poster edarrel, armed with an American Flag icon, speaks. This is really what a (Kuhnian or otherwise) 'scientific revolution' is about. For starters, the folly with which some specialized scientists pretend evolution is only about biology or chemistry or botany or geology is a myth that needs to be dispelled.

There is not yet, however, a book or paper by anyone IN the IDM (or those dancing around it), not even Dembski's "Design Revolution" that signifies the 'revolution' ID theories are promising. One wonders what all of the money is being spent for/on if not merely as a prelude to the real discovery or invention that is soon to come. At least it should be fun!

"Where does one buy stock in all this?" - Steve Petermann

If I were you, I'd be putting my money on clerks in patent offices, or in a 21st century version of the most unlikely place you'd think a trailblazer could be starting from or currently living. It must be worth investing in such a long shot if one were to be found at hand, asking for yours. Numbers aside but not without meaning for a Jerry Mcguire-inspired thread.

And whatever the discovery or interpretation would likely piss off R. Dawkins of England (home of icon Charles) something fierce, so that many people could go home smiling after reading it. Or perhaps they'll already be in the comfort of their own home and just click 'send,' to their relative, neighbour or friend, and the smiles of post-evolutionism and pre-Darwin memories will be shared all around.

Arago

'Get lost and then get found, not swallowed in the sea.' - Coldplay (EMI, 2005)

Here's another interesting statistic: If one takes the 10,000 papers/year published supporting or explaining evolution over the past 14 years, and if one assumes 500 hours in preparation for each (which may be conservative"”hey, it's a swag), one gets 5 million man hours in research under the evolution paradigm.

Where did you get your 10000 number?

Define "the evolution paradigm?"

Oh, heck, why embarrass the ID guys any more. Do your own math, if you really want to be boggled.