Aug 252006

two jedi

William Bradford and Jonathan Bartlett

Man am I glad to see these guys. Back in the bad ole’ days of ARN in 2000 it was 1 IDer on the net versus swarms on the other side. The tide is turning.

What I’m witnessing now is that the other side is not getting many reinforcements, while fresh new internet warriors enter the pro-ID side. In 10 years, there will be simply too many IDers on the net. Once it is seen that IDers can win debates on the net, more will feel eager to jump it without feeling intimidated.

As PZ Myers noted: In which I agree with Nelson

PZ speaking of his fear of ID:
This is a culture war. It’s not being waged in courtrooms and ballot boxes, but in people’s homes and churches and schools, it’s going on in newsletters and editorial pages and web sites
The parable is actually making the chilling point that the school board elections don’t matter, because they have other channels to abuse and limit and warp children’s minds. And they are going to use them.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
15 years ago

The warping of children’s minds was once the exclusive purview of the atheistic Darwinists, ID is only asking for equal time.

Darwinists still have the upper hand in terms of captive audience in the public schools, courtrooms, and government oppression. Unfortunately for them their fairytale is starting to disintegrate as the smoke clears and the black boxes opened.

15 years ago


As you know, I’ve been involved in the online discussion forums, including ARN, for a long time. The trend I’ve seen is that more and more of the anti-ID side are becoming quiet,posting less, or disappearing altogether. But, I’ve yet to see any of them admit that their arguments have been refuted. That’s probably the one thing that bothers me the most in all these discussions. Hardly any of the anti-ID crowd ever seem willing to concede an argument if the challenge comes from someone who is an IDP. Yet, I have seen them acknowledge errors in their arguments when the very same errors are pointed out to them (however rarely that might be) by a fellow anti-ID person. Sharp minded IDPs are no doubt picking up on that trend and beginning to enter the fray.

Another aspect of the trend I’ve noticed is that many of the anti-ID crowd are still fighting “creationism” (whatever the definition du jour of that term happens to be), and thus railing against arguments that are, essentially, no longer being made. Another word for this is “straw man”. Every time I see a comment like “that argument has been eviscerated long ago…”, or some version thereof, it is almost a sure bet that the argument in question has nothing to do with whatever the anti-ID person claims has been “eviscerated” (or “destroyed” or “annhilated” or ‘some other form of destruction’). More often it means something like “I don’t have a clue how to respond to your actual argument, so I’ll pretend it is really this other old argument and claim victory!” Again, sharp minded IDPs, like Bartlett and Bradford, can’t help but notice there’s something intellectually wrong here, and thus are emboldened to join the debate.

15 years ago

Sal, that is a much better picture.

15 years ago

Hardly any of the anti-ID crowd ever seem willing to concede an argument

You are absolutely correct, I’ve noticed the same thing. This is actually a positive for the IDP because the objective observer will see through their blind adherence as pseudoscience. I am just glad that PZ Myers is a poster child for the atheistic Darwinists.

15 years ago

Thanks for the props, Sal!

I think that the clarifying of what ID is will be the death knell of Darwinism. Our culture is the culture of choice-worshippers. Once people realize that Darwinism == materialism without choice and ID is the only logical way to include choice in a scientific worldview, the case will be over.

This is why I often wish the major ID spokespeople wouldn’t focus on Darwinism so much. By instead emphasizing the “choice” side, you can force Darwinists to admit the truth about what they think, and automatically win the public debate.

To be a materialist, one must deny the basic reality of themselves and the choices and experiences they make every day. Denying experience is the opposite of science.