May 222007
 

While not every Darwinist is an atheist, just about every atheist is a Darwinist. So don’t tell me that there is no connection between ID, Darwinism and Atheism.

Thank you to EN&V for bringing this bigotry to our attention and another demonstration of atheist morality.
Chronicle of Higher Education Unearths New Evidence in Support of Gonzalez, But Tries to Discount It

Iowa State Promotes Atheist Professor Who Equates Bible with Mein Kampf While Denying Tenure to ID Astronomer

Iowa State’s Spokesman Tells Another Whopper about University’s Tenure Standards

U.S. Senator Expresses Alarm Over Denial of Tenure to Gonzalez at Iowa State

Key Developments in Gonzalez Tenure Denial Case, May 14-19

Darwinists Spread Misinformation about Guillermo Gonzalez’s Denial of Tenure

ISU Faculty Admit ID Played Role in Gonzalez Tenure Denial

  102 Responses to “Atheist Bigots Abound”

  1. “While not every Darwinist is an atheist, just about every atheist is a Darwinist.” Therefore just about every anti-Darwinist must be a theist. So don’t tell me that there is no connection between ID, Darwinism and theism.

  2. It’s a really weird way of looking at things: that there would be sides, as if both theism and atheism were banners to rally behind, persons to like or dislike. I used to just look at the facts and select the most likely explanation for them. Now I find myself needing to select values with those facts. Worst of all: I find myself slipping into this mode of thought with a deceptive ease. One explanation is bad, the other is good, instead of right vs. wrong: it’s so human, such a natural way to think about things, don’t you think?

  3. Gralgrathor,

    I appreciate your conciliatory demeanor. I agree it is human nature to return what is given; when you are treated badly/kindly you will return in kind.

    I think Theism and Atheism is a banner to rally behind. For a Christian it is a Worldview that not only matter in time but eternity. However, it is not a banner to like of dislike someone. One of my best friends is an atheist. The truth is whether we are conscious of our own presupposition or not, we make our value judgments based on those presuppositions. Facts alone have no value or moral predispositions.

    As far as intelligent design is concerned, almost from day one with the introduction of Darwin on Trial and Darwin’s Black Box, atheists have decried ID as Creationism in disguise. Atheists have ignored the IDist’s focus on strictly the facts/data and instead attack their personal beliefs. Yet atheists are often upset when I try to point out that their view of Darwinian evolution is driven by their personal commitment to Atheism.

    Christians do make strong absolute declaration of what is right and wrong according to the Bible. The dirty little secret (or most atheists refuse to believe) is that Christians never thought that we are better than anyone else. We recognize that we are only sinners saved by grace. On the other hand, we have atheists like Dawkins and Harris who considers themselves more “evolved” /better than Christians because they considered Christians as terrorists and child abusers for teaching their children Christianity.

    Thank you for your contribution to this blog.

  4. Hi Gralgrathor

    The atheist/theist issue is significant for ID (and for the ID-evolution debate in general). First of all, compare the claim that life arose from nature vs the claim that life was created by an intelligent designer. For an atheist, the latter is much harder to swallow, because we have to then suppose the existence for this intelligent designer. Occam’s razor is firmly for naturalistic beginnings. On the other hand, the Christian knows there was (and is) an intelligent designer as an article of faith. For him, Occam’s razor points to ID.

    Beyond that, it is worth remembering that ID is founded on the principle of smashing materialism, by which they mean atheism, but will include the methodological naturalism upon which science is founded. The Wedge Document leaves that in no doubt. From the introduction:

    The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West’s greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.
    Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art.
    The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.
    Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.
    Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.
    Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.

    Certainly there are some prominent scientists who seek to smash religion (eg Dawkins), but they are a noisy minority. Equally certainly smashing religion is not a founding principle of science!

    Of course, many scientists are against ID, but that does include some Christians (for example, see this web page by Edward Babinski).

    Many people see ID as a sneaky way to get creationism into schools and into science, the thin end of the Wedge, as it were. IDists deny this, but the Dover court ruling said otherwise. It may indeed be that most IDists really do not see ID that way, but the Wedge document has a stated aim “We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula.“. It is clear that the ID leaders want to get ID in schools, and it is also true that most IDists are creationists.

    Because of its clear connections to creationism, and attempts to disrupt science across the subjects, most scientists will reject ID just because it is ID. All this is bad for ID science and for science in general. Afterall, it is possible that they are correct. But can science afford to take that risk? Better to stick with mainstream science, and to stop the likes of Gonzales getting tenure (and like everyone else in this debate, I have no idea about the real reasons for that), than to allow the religious right to throw out a scientific methodology that has done great service for over a century because it disqualifies their pet thory, to allow them to teach school children that the universe was created in 6 days 6000 years ago, and that the Grand Canyon formed after the Great Flood. Sure, that may not be the result, but why give tenure to a man affiliated with an organisation with that aim? Why run the risk?

  5. Readers of this blog should be aware of the duplicity of some of our commenters. They will make references to some things while leaving out crucial facts or have a different standard for themselves. e.g. An atheist might say “ID is much harder to swallow, because we have to then suppose the existence for this intelligent designer.” But they have no problem of swallowing abiogenesis or the Big Bang of the universe from nothing. He will swallow this hook, line and sinker on the promise of finding some evidence for this some day. This is called Atheism of the Gap argument; if you don’t know something just fill the gap in your knowledge with philosophical naturalism.

    An atheist’s duplicity can also be seen in the way they reference ID sources. Lawrence Krauss for instance quoted from the “Wedge document” this way — ” But what does the document say? It says the proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. This cardinal idea came under wholesale attack drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Science is the villain. There is only one problem with Krauss’s quote, it is not accurate. Krauss left out the words “by intellectuals” in the sentence “this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science” By removing these 2 little words it gives the impression that the Wedge document is not criticizing certain individuals, instead the criticism is on modern science. This is very convenient for Krauss’s public relations campaign that ID is anti-science. The only problem with his spin is that it is not true. Pixie does the same with his quote-mining in bold. Is DI trying to smash atheism or atheism’s perversion of science? Pixie conveniently neglected to mention this other statement from the Wedge document. Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. Please read Discovery Institute’s “Wedge Document” , a rebuttal to the Darwinist propaganda.

    An atheist like Pixie will claim that people like Dawkins and Harris is a minority voice among atheists, maybe or maybe not. e.g. I asked him if he agrees with a video of Sam Harris attacking Christians, where he equated Christians to terrorists in Afghanistan. “Do you think he is over the top with this inane and sophomoric diatribe?” Pixie’s answer: “I found Harris’ talk to be interesting and well thought out.” Not only do I think Harris’s talk was over the top, Moses Znaimer who introduced him at the beginning thinks all religious people are fanatics and he is fed up because they are responsible for all the cruel, wanton atrocities in the world. Harris spoke to an applauding audience assumed to be secular (meaning atheists). Did Pixie chastise them as a noisy minority and their rhetoric as over the top? NO, Pixie did not! So pardon me if I don’t believe Pixie. Furthermore, there are numerous groups out there that their overt and implied mission is to attack religion. One of the most powerful secular groups (ACLU) in American is constantly seeking to limit the religious freedom of “Christians” . Are people like Dawkins, Harris and Pixie a noisy minority? I don’t know but it doesn’t seem like it.

    ID’s goal is not to attack science and science or the principles of science are not antithetical to religion. Remember, ID seeks to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview,NOT SCIENCE, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian Worldview. This means science should be neutral and not antagonistic to religion. Follow the facts wherever it may lead and not just limited to an atheistic worldview. No more Atheism of the Gap science.

  6. @ teleologist — May 24, 2007 @ 5:50 pm

    ID seeks to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview,NOT SCIENCE, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian Worldview

    How do you suppose to replace a worldview with a science?
    And what does that mean for science? Should the tenets or methodology of science be changed to accomodate this worldview?

  7. Readers of this blog should be aware of the duplicity of some of our commenters. They will make references to some things while leaving out crucial facts or have a different standard for themselves. e.g. An atheist might say “ID is much harder to swallow, because we have to then suppose the existence for this intelligent designer.” But they have no problem of swallowing abiogenesis or the Big Bang of the universe from nothing.

    Hopefully readers of this blog will have the sense to understand what my point really was.

    He will swallow this hook, line and sinker on the promise of finding some evidence for this some day. This is called Atheism of the Gap argument; if you don’t know something just fill the gap in your knowledge with philosophical naturalism.

    Where this differs from the “God of the gaps” argument is (1) that historially science has filled gaps, God has not (eg we now have a naturalistic explanation of lightning) and (2) scientists are doing research to full the remaining gaps, theists are not.

    An atheist’s duplicity can also be seen in the way they reference ID sources. Lawrence Krauss …

    I did not. I quoted a big chunk so everyone could see the context.

    Pixie does the same with his quote-mining in bold.

    Hardly. I very clearly put the bit in bold in context by quoting pretty much all the introduction to the argument. To claim I am taking the quote out of context when the context was also quoted is quite a stretch, even for you.

    Pixie conveniently neglected to mention this other statement from the Wedge document. Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

    That is every bit as damning as the part I quoted!

    Please read Discovery Institute’s “Wedge Document” , a rebuttal to the Darwinist propaganda.

    And as you read it, bear in mind that the Wedge Document was originally a secret. It was only when it was exposed that the DI had to prtoduce this spin.

    An atheist like Pixie will claim that people like Dawkins and Harris is a minority voice among atheists, maybe or maybe not. e.g. I asked him if he agrees with a video of Sam Harris attacking Christians, where he equated Christians to terrorists in Afghanistan. “Do you think he is over the top with this inane and sophomoric diatribe?” Pixie’s answer: “I found Harris’ talk to be interesting and well thought out.” Not only do I think Harris’s talk was over the top, Moses Znaimer who introduced him at the beginning thinks all religious people are fanatics and he is fed up because they are responsible for all the cruel, wanton atrocities in the world. Harris spoke to an applauding audience assumed to be secular (meaning atheists). Did Pixie chastise them as a noisy minority and their rhetoric as over the top? NO, Pixie did not! So pardon me if I don’t believe Pixie.

    Teleologisit, you refuse to believe me whatever I say!

    How many people are atheists? How many were at that talk? Is it possible that a talk by an over-the-top atheist will attract other over-the-top atheists or modrate atheists? Do fundamentalist churches attract fundamentalist Christians or moderate Christians?

    Did I say I agreed with Harris? No I did not. So you were forced to search out quotes that make it appear as though I do. In the same post where you complain about me doing that with the Wedge Document. Except I quoted the context as well. Hopefully others can see the double standards here, even if you cannot.

    Furthermore, there are numerous groups out there that their overt and implied mission is to attack religion. One of the most powerful secular groups (ACLU) in American is constantly seeking to limit the religious freedom of “Christians” . Are people like Dawkins, Harris and Pixie a noisy minority? I don’t know but it doesn’t seem like it.

    Ah, now I am put in that noisy minority. How easy it is for you to misrepresent your opponents.

    ID’s goal is not to attack science and science or the principles of science are not antithetical to religion. Remember, ID seeks to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview,NOT SCIENCE, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian Worldview. This means science should be neutral and not antagonistic to religion. Follow the facts wherever it may lead and not just limited to an atheistic worldview. No more Atheism of the Gap science.

    Science is based on methodological naturalism. Does ID seek to change that? You tell me.

  8. With regards to Te’s second link in the OP, Hector Avalos has responed here to the DI’s claims:
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/avalos_responds.php

    It would seem the DI are just as fond as Tel at distorting the views of atheists!

  9. Hopefully readers of this blog will have the sense to understand what my point really was.

    I hope they do and see the kind of double standard that Pixie and other atheists use in attacking science and religion.

    Where this differs from the “God of the gaps” argument is (1) that historially science has filled gaps, God has not (eg we now have a naturalistic explanation of lightning) and (2) scientists are doing research to full the remaining gaps, theists are not.

    1. In the past, the explanations for phenomena such as lightning were not derived at through an empirical and rational basis. ID seeks to explain all such phenomena on an empirical basis. 2. Atheistic Darwinian scientists are not doing research to fill the remaining gaps. They are doing research to reinforce their materialistic worldview. This is most evident in biology and especially in abiogenesis. This is exactly the “Atheism of the Gap” argument that I am talking about. Atheists don’t have any empirical evidence to explain a phenomenon, so they revert back to the days of superstition and pretend that some mystical chaotic random force have created the universe out of nothing, life just pop into being from none life and a fox just poof into a cetacean. Who need empirical evidence when you have the all powerful “Atheism of the Gap” , may the force be with you.

    Hardly. I very clearly put the bit in bold in context by quoting pretty much all the introduction to the argument.

    You are either ignorant (which I doubt) or you are duplicitous. The context of the document was a criticism on atheistic materialism and its’ stranglehold on science. Certainly by only giving the section you quoted without other parts of the document that makes it clear the Wedge objective was not against science, rather the Wedge is only critical of atheist philosophy’s perversion of science, you were selectively quote-mining.

    That is every bit as damning as the part I quoted!

    True, but only to an atheist who want to pervert science and preserve their atheistic ideology in science.

    And as you read it, bear in mind that the Wedge Document was originally a secret. It was only when it was exposed that the DI had to prtoduce this spin.

    Exposed? Did the atheists steal the document? How moral of you. Did DI publish the document? If it was so secret why did they let it out? Or maybe it was as DI said that they gave the document to only those who are likely supporter to solicit financial support. Does DI have to report everything they do to the atheists who seek to pervert science? What paranoia!

    Teleologisit, you refuse to believe me whatever I say!

    I don’t know you personally. I can only go by what you’ve said.

    How many people are atheists? How many were at that talk? Is it possible that a talk by an over-the-top atheist will attract other over-the-top atheists or modrate atheists? Do fundamentalist churches attract fundamentalist Christians or moderate Christians?

    You tell me. How do you know they are a minority?

    Did I say I agreed with Harris? ” Ah, now I am put in that noisy minority. How easy it is for you to misrepresent your opponents.

    It sure sounded like you did. You complimented Harris (who is supposed to be an over the top atheist) on what he said. So I must assume that you are in that league. I doubt you would compliment an over the top Christian equating atheists with terrorists.

    Science is based on methodological naturalism. Does ID seek to change that? You tell me.

    Science is not based on methodological naturalism. 1. It depends on how you define MN. In the eyes of many prominent scientists there is no difference between MN and PN(philosophical naturalism). 2. Even if I accept the distinction, science does not and must not be based on MN. Science should be based on obtaining knowledge wherever the data leads. Should I rule out the conclusion of metaphysics just because it is not MN? This would rule out multiverse and extra-dimensional planes if MN is strictly the case. However, we know that is not case as far as atheists are concern. Atheists are happy to postulate a non-material universe as long as we don’t call that God. So the answer is yes, ID seeks to change the atheist’s MN perversion of science to a strictly empirically based science that follows the data without any predefined boundaries.

  10. Gralgrathor,

    How do you suppose to replace a worldview with a science?

    That is not exact what they meant. The first part of that sentence says ” to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview” , i.e. an atheistic worldview that is not based on science and has perverted the empirical scientific methods with an atheistic philosophy. IOW, ID seeks to bring science back to where it was and should be, i.e. strictly empirically based.

  11. It would seem the DI are just as fond as Tel at distorting the views of atheists!

    You have audacity to accuse us of distortion? Pixie the Insincere Debater

    Avalos’s comments are full of lies and distortions if he was trying to address the link I gave above.
    1. John West never said Avalos cannot critique ID because he is not a scientist. AVALOS LIED and PIXIE CONDONED!

    2. Avalos never directly addressed West’s quotes from Avalos’s book where he appears to blame the Jewish people for Hitler’s genocide. (BTW, Pixie would agree with this genocide if that was the consensus of society.)

    At other points, Avalos appears to blame Jewish people for Hitler’s attempt to exterminate them, locating the origins of the Holocaust in what he calls “Hebrew racism.” Consider the following passages:

    “The purpose here is to show that the Nazi policy of genocide was based on premises quite similar to those in the Hebrew Bible.” [p. 316]

    “the Nazi Holocaust represents the synthesis of attitudes found in both the New Testament and the Hebrew scriptures.” [p. 318]

    “[Scholars Katz and Wolpoff] fail to see the parallels between certain practices promulgated in the Hebrew Bible itself. Indeed, the supreme irony of the Holocaust is that the genocidal policies first systematically enunciated in the Hebrew scriptures were reversed by the Nazis. Nazi ideology simply had better technology to do what biblical authors had said they would do to their enemies.” [pp. 318-319]

    “Hitler saw himself as trying to counteract Hebrew racism, which he saw as the main counterpart and enemy of the German race.” [p. 319]

    3. West never said that. This is a straw man. AVALOS LIED and PIXIE CONDONED!

    4. West never said that. This is a straw man. AVALOS LIED and PIXIE CONDONED!

    5. Avalos claims that he did not spearheaded an atheist plot in Iowa. A picture is worth a thousand words, look at this website Serving Atheists and Agnostics Since 1999. It sure looks like he is leading the charge to attack Dr. Gonzales.

    One more point, atheists like Avalos is a master of deception. Avalos subtly refer to ID as a “theological argument” and therefore giving himself the qualification to criticize it. This is the kind of cheap rhetoric the atheists have been using against ID from the start. They just can’t seem to keep the debate on a purely scientific basis.

  12. Exposed? Did the atheists steal the document? How moral of you.

    From what I heard the DI asked some people to photocoy it for internal use, and those people then released it. So yes, the DI wanted it kept secret. Yes, it was exposed. It was not stolen, but there was a breach of confidentiality, which was wrong. I do not know if they were atheists, they could have been theistic evolutionists, thetymight even have been creationist (some creationist are against ID). I do not accept moral responsiblity for every atheist; it was not me that did it.

    How do you know they are a minority?

    I know plenty of atheists, and none are extreme in the Dawkins way, so I suspect they are a minority.

    It sure sounded like you did.

    Really? So how come you could find nothing where I actually said that? Is it at all possible that you already have me labelled as a “fundamentalist” atheist, and so read my posts in that way. Anyway, others can jude this for themselves.

    Science is not based on methodological naturalism. 1. It depends on how you define MN. In the eyes of many prominent scientists there is no difference between MN and PN(philosophical naturalism).

    Plenty of scientists can see the difference. There are loads of Christians who are scientists and have no problem with MN, but I must assume eject PN.

    2. Even if I accept the distinction, science does not and must not be based on MN.

    There is the money quote. I say the DI want to reject MN. You say I misrepresent the DI, and, oh yes, you want to reject MN.

    Science should be based on obtaining knowledge wherever the data leads. Should I rule out the conclusion of metaphysics just because it is not MN? This would rule out multiverse and extra-dimensional planes if MN is strictly the case.

    If there is evidential support for multiverse and extra-dimensional planes, if they can be investigated, the theories make predictions that are testable, then multiverse and extra-dimensional planes are perfectly compatible with MN. If they cannot be investigated and tested, then I would say they are not science (I think currently they are in limbo; scientists are considering them, but they are not accept as science, precisely because no one can think of a way to test them).

    John West never said Avalos cannot critique ID because he is not a scientist.

    Avalos subtly refer to ID as a “theological argument” and therefore giving himself the qualification to criticize it.

    Anyone else see the irony?

  13. From what I heard the DI asked some people to photocoy it for internal use, and those people then released it. So yes, the DI wanted it kept secret.

    Well that makes it all clear now of course DI wanted to keep it a secret. You’ve provide such strong evidence to support your claim. Did that same source tried to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge? Or maybe he gave you the “Atheism of the Gap” argument, that someday they will fill the gap of missing evidence with actual proof?

    I know plenty of atheists, and none are extreme in the Dawkins way, so I suspect they are a minority.

    Tada! How can you argue with this type of ironclad anecdotal argument?

    Really? So how come you could find nothing where I actually said that?

    You mean other than the fact that Pixie’s answer: “I found Harris’ talk to be interesting and well thought out.” I am sure we all would understand that to mean you disagree with Harris and you thought he was over the top.

    There is the money quote. I say the DI want to reject MN. You say I misrepresent the DI, and, oh yes, you want to reject MN.

    Duh! Of course you are misrepresenting DI. You are trying to equate MN as science thereby misrepresenting DI as against science. When in actuality DI is against MN which is atheistic presuppositions.

    then multiverse and extra-dimensional planes are perfectly compatible with MN.

    No they are not and multiverse and extra-dimensional planes will never be able to be observed. Any predictions or observations can only make inference to these theories. This is exactly why atheists have a double standard and a stranglehold on science. They are willing to accept something that is completely non-material and will never be observe to exist in this naturalistic universe but they refuse to allow ID to make the same inferential theories. Hypocrites!

    Anyone else see the irony?

    What irony? I made the second quote not West. Avalos was attacking West for something that he never said. Besides I never said that Avalos cannot criticize ID because he is not a scientist. I can care less; I am only interested in the strength of his argument. What I pointed out was Avalos felt that he had to change the essence of what ID is (just as what Pixie have been doing) to give himself more qualification to criticize it. My statement was a reflection of what is apparent intention rather than mine.

  14. Tel

    Pix: From what I heard the DI asked some people to photocoy it for internal use, and those people then released it. So yes, the DI wanted it kept secret.

    Tel: Well that makes it all clear now of course DI wanted to keep it a secret. You’ve provide such strong evidence to support your claim.

    When I start “From what I heard” I am implying that I am unsure how reliable the information is. That you twist this to imply I am presenting it as fact is more of the usual misrepresentation.

    Here is a web page of the “Seattle Weekly”, with all the details:
    http://www.seattleweekly.com/2006-02-01/news/discovery-s-creation.php

    Pix: I know plenty of atheists, and none are extreme in the Dawkins way, so I suspect they are a minority.

    Tel: Tada! How can you argue with this type of ironclad anecdotal argument?

    There you go again. I clearly say “I suspect” and you pretend I am claiming it as fact.

    You mean other than the fact that Pixie’s answer: “I found Harris’ talk to be interesting and well thought out.” I am sure we all would understand that to mean you disagree with Harris and you thought he was over the top.

    I can find something interesting, even if I disagree with it. I can find something well thought out, even if I disagree with it. Again, you are twisting my words.

    “then multiverse and extra-dimensional planes are perfectly compatible with MN.”
    No they are not and multiverse and extra-dimensional planes will never be able to be observed.

    Wow. I mean, really, wow. This is so blatant I have to wonder if this is a joke. Pergaps we should see the whole sentence that I posted: “If there is evidential support for multiverse and extra-dimensional planes, if they can be investigated, the theories make predictions that are testable, then multiverse and extra-dimensional planes are perfectly compatible with MN.

    See there was that condition at the front there. Basically I was saying if we can observe the multiverse, then the multiverse is compatible with MN. You choose to ignore the first bit, and then object, because the multiverse cannot be observed. Well, Tel, you are wrong!

    If (as I stipulated before) there is evidential support for multiverse and extra-dimensional planes, if they can be investigated, the theories make predictions that are testable, then multiverse and extra-dimensional planes can be observed.

    Of course, by observed I mean in the way electrons and blackholes are observed of course; no one can actually see electron or blackholes. I really hope you are not going down that road!

    They are willing to accept something that is completely non-material and will never be observe to exist in this naturalistic universe but they refuse to allow ID to make the same inferential theories. Hypocrites!

    Atheists accept the existence of gravity, despite it being non-material, and despite no one ever having seen gravity. But it has been observed and quantified we can make predictions based on the established laws of gravity. If the same is true of the multiverse theory or ID, they can become science. If not, they cannot.

    Where is the hypocrisy?

    What irony? I made the second quote not West. Avalos was attacking West for something that he never said.

    That is why I said irony, and not contradiction.

    Besides I never said that Avalos cannot criticize ID because he is not a scientist. I can care less; I am only interested in the strength of his argument. What I pointed out was Avalos felt that he had to change the essence of what ID is (just as what Pixie have been doing) to give himself more qualification to criticize it. My statement was a reflection of what is apparent intention rather than mine.

    Hmm, sounds like spin to me. Here is what you said, for reference: Avalos subtly refer to ID as a “theological argument” and therefore giving himself the qualification to criticize it.
    First time he gave himself the qualification, second time he gave himself more qualification. First time you presented it as fact. Second time merely “apparent intention“. And second time around we learn you can read minds, and can present as fact Avalos’ motives. I wonder how you can be so sure (first time around at least) that that was what Avalos was trying to do?

    By the way Avalos has a BA in Anthropology, University of Arizona (1982) (see here), so does have a science degree.

  15. All,

    I was once an atheist bigot, just like Dawkins and Avalos, and a militant persecutor of Christians, just like Saul of Tarsus.

    I can’t take back those years, but I can admit my error, ask for forgiveness, and do the best I can to make restitution for the hideous damage to others’ spiritual lives that I might have caused due to my ignorance, pride, and selfishness.

    I would encourage atheists to think about this.

    Gil

  16. Chris Heard, Associate Professor of Religion at Pepperdine University, is a Christian who has written a blog entry, In defense of Hector Avalos (thanks to PT for the link). He starts:

    Now it’s not as if Hector Avalos really needs any defense, least of all from me. Longtime readers may remember that I disagreed pretty strongly with some things that Hector wrote in the SBL Forum last summer.

    And continues:

    On the Discovery Institute’s “Evolution News and Views” web site, the headline screams, “Iowa State Promotes Atheist Professor Who Equates Bible with Mein Kampf While Denying Tenure to ID Astronomer.” Now this is really curious, for a couple of reasons. First, it’s rank hypocrisy: the DI wants to claim that Gonzalez has been persecuted for his ideology, and so their tactic is– you guessed it– to attempt to persecute Hector for his ideology. Second, it’s rank hypocrisy: the DI constantly claims that ID is about science, not about religion, so why should they care one whit about Hector’s view of the Bible?

    After a lengthy quote from the DI web page:

    What’s telling here is that, despite their outrage, the best critique the DI can muster is a half-hearted attempt at something resembling post-Holocaust sensitivity. They do not, and indeed could not argue with intellectual integrity (not usually high on the list for the DI when it goes into attack mode), that Hector is wrong— because, simply put, he’s not. The Tanakh– the focus of my professional activities and a significant factor in my own religious convictions– offers up some positively genocidal texts, and not just as narratives, but as divine law. As a Christian believer, I wish that weren’t the case, but I’m not going to whitewash matters and pretend that those texts aren’t there. I have even written about this myself (but unfortunately that article sits right in the gap between the SBL’s online Semeia archive and Rosetta’s archive of older Semeia volumes). Yes, of course Hector’s comparison is provocative, but it’s also accurate.

    He ends:

    Have I mentioned that I disagree with Hector on a number of points? He’s an atheist and I’m a believer; that alone will tell you that we don’t see eye to eye. But I am outraged by the DI’s attempts to slander a reputable and ethical scholar just because they’re upset that he got tenure when their pal didn’t.

    So not just the atheist bigots are siding with Avalos, but some Christians as well.

  17. the Pixie:
    Therefore just about every anti-Darwinist must be a theist.

    They could be agnostic.

    The atheist/theist issue is significant for ID (and for the ID-evolution debate in general).

    No it isn’t. ID doesn’t care about theism.

    First of all, compare the claim that life arose from nature vs the claim that life was created by an intelligent designer.

    The claim is about what nature, operating freely, can produce. Then one has to consider how did nature arise? It couldn’t have been through natural processes because they only exist in nature!

    For an atheist, the latter is much harder to swallow, because we have to then suppose the existence for this intelligent designer.

    But all you have left is sheer dumb luck. And that isn’t scientific.

    Occam’s razor is firmly for naturalistic beginnings.

    One design trumps multiple accidents.

    Beyond that, it is worth remembering that ID is founded on the principle of smashing materialism, by which they mean atheism, but will include the methodological naturalism upon which science is founded.

    Any evidence to support the claim that science was founded on methodological naturalism? Newton would disagree. And I will side with him over you.

    Many people see ID as a sneaky way to get creationism into schools and into science, the thin end of the Wedge, as it were.

    And all those people are either stupid or ignorant.

    IDists deny this, but the Dover court ruling said otherwise.

    Ummm ID wasn’t being taught in Dover. Also the Dover ruling was made because of the school boards’ lies and deceptions. The judge didn’t understand the science and he still doesn’t understand what is being debated.

    The bottom line is ID would go away if those atheists could only support their PoV.

    Yet as it stands today we don’t even know whether or not any amount of mutations can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.

    There isn’t any way to objectively test the premise that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

    As for Hector- anyone who denies a free exchange of ideas should be booted off of any campus.

    There is only ONE reality behind our existence.

  18. This is too funny:

    But I am outraged by the DI’s attempts to slander a reputable and ethical scholar just because they’re upset that he got tenure when their pal didn’t.

    Hector can hardly be called “ethical”. Just for his role against Gonzalez he is definitely not ethical.

    First, it’s rank hypocrisy: the DI wants to claim that Gonzalez has been persecuted for his ideology, and so their tactic is– you guessed it– to attempt to persecute Hector for his ideology.

    What is good for the goose. IOW fight fire with fire.

    Second, it’s rank hypocrisy: the DI constantly claims that ID is about science, not about religion, so why should they care one whit about Hector’s view of the Bible?

    Could be because Hector is a liar who doesn’t care about the Bible. And I doubt that Hector even understands ID.

    But I am outraged by the DI’s attempts to slander a reputable and ethical scholar just because they’re upset that he got tenure when their pal didn’t.

    That completely missed the point. Gonzalez has done far more to advance the science of astronomy than Hector has to advance anything. GG also appears to be the top astronomer at ISU.

    He should just leave ISU. It isn’t exactly a hotbed for acadamia…

  19. Joe

    I thought this place was pushing up the daisies…

    They could be agnostic.

    That would be why I said “just about every” rather than “every”.

    The atheist/theist issue is significant for ID (and for the ID-evolution debate in general).

    No it isn’t. ID doesn’t care about theism.

    I know. Even so, the atheist/theist issue is significant for ID. Just see how often religion comes up on fora about ID to see this illustrated. This may surprise you, Joe, but many IDists think the designer is God.

    There are broadly two forms of ID. In the first, we posit ET designing life on Earth. But where does ET come from? Where did the CSI in ET come from? The ET designer merely pushes the origins problem to another planet. The other form of ID posits a supernatural designer who created all life in the universe, but is himself external to the universe. I.e., God. To claim that ID does not care about theism is perverse (but political).

    The claim is about what nature, operating freely, can produce. Then one has to consider how did nature arise? It couldn’t have been through natural processes because they only exist in nature!

    Right. So if it was not natural, that would make is supernatural. I.e., God.

    But all you have left is sheer dumb luck. And that isn’t scientific.

    No, we have the laws of nature.

    Any evidence to support the claim that science was founded on methodological naturalism? Newton would disagree. And I will side with him over you.

    Yeah, well Newton believed in alchemy, so that is no surprise.

    And all those people are either stupid or ignorant.

    Somehow I do not find name calling convincing. So was Judge Jones stupid or ignorant?

    Pix: IDists deny this, but the Dover court ruling said otherwise.

    .

    Joe: Ummm ID wasn’t being taught in Dover. Also the Dover ruling was made because of the school boards’ lies and deceptions. The judge didn’t understand the science and he still doesn’t understand what is being debated.

    Nevertheless, the Dover court ruling still stated that ID is creationism in dusguise. IDists had the chance to state their case, and if the judge did not understand them, they can only blame themselves. Why did the likes of Dembski decide not to appear in court?

    Yet as it stands today we don’t even know whether or not any amount of mutations can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.

    I bet more Darwinists are looking into that than IDists are looking into how ID happened.

    There isn’t any way to objectively test the premise that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

    Genetics. In particular of non-coding regions.

    Speaking of which, why do you think it is that both chimps and humans have the genetic code for vitamin C synthesis, but in both cases the gene is faulty, and so neither chimp nor humans can synthesise vitamin C synthesis? Oh, and why is it we both have the same error? According to common descent this is because the error occurred in some common ancestor, and was passed down to all descendants, including chimps and humans. Can you explain it?

    Hector can hardly be called “ethical” . Just for his role against Gonzalez he is definitely not ethical.

    Wht was his role against Gonzalez?

    Could be because Hector is a liar who doesn’t care about the Bible. And I doubt that Hector even understands ID.

    What makes you think Hector is a liar? And I know plenty of IDists who patently do not understand biology, but that does not stop them.

    That completely missed the point. Gonzalez has done far more to advance the science of astronomy than Hector has to advance anything.

    What makes you say that? They work in completely different fields, so it is not easy to compare their output, but Hector has a pretty impressive track record. What advances to astronomy has Gonzalez made?

  20. With regards to the Gonzalez tenure incident, here is a blog post by a guy, Rob Knop, who is quitting academia because it is so hard getting tenure (hat tip Joy at Telic Thoughts).

    The significant point is that this guy is not a creationist and not an IDist. Apparently it is hard to get tenure for everyone.

  21. The atheist/theist issue is significant for ID (and for the ID-evolution debate in general).

    Why is that? Because atheists have ignore empirical science and scientific debate in favor of ad hominem attacks with books like Forrest, Harris, Dawkins, Dennett and the rabid Myers blog. ID is unequivocally an threat to the atheist’s metaphysical belief.

    Provine’s metaphysics
    Not so for William Provine. His answer is clear: there is nothing out there, we die in the most definitive sense of the word, and there is no point in even asking the question of the ultimate meaning of life. Where does he get this conclusion? From the Darwinian theory of evolution by descent with modification. According to Provine, not only there is no evidence for anything beyond matter, but the whole essence of evolutionary change should tell us that it is irrational to even look for it.

    Oh yeah, take away Darwinian evolution and what do you get? An unfulfilled Atheist!

    Dawkins observed that Darwin “made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

  22. Apparently it is hard to get tenure for everyone.

    Hello anybody home? Does this guy work in the same university as Gonzales? Are we comparing apple to apple? This is how pathetic Darwinian logic gets.

  23. Hi Tel!

    Hello anybody home? Does this guy work in the same university as Gonzales? Are we comparing apple to apple? This is how pathetic Darwinian logic gets.

    Is it that different between universities? Are you claiming that at Gonzales it is relatively easy to get tenure, while at Rob Knop’s college it is very difficult? I must admit, I was making the assumption that the situation was comparable across the board (that they are all apples if you like). What evidence do you have that tenure is easy at Iowa State for non-IDists? Is this based on the fact that Avalos got tenure? Is it possible that ID logic goes:

    *Avalos got tenure
    *Avalos is an atheist
    *Therefore Avalos cannot be a good academic (certainly this is the implied logic in the Discovery Institute article linked above)
    *Therefore it must be easy to get tenure at Iowa State
    *Rob Knop says it is difficult to get tenure at his college
    *Therefore the situation at Rob Knop’s college is entirely different to that at Iowa State

    I hope there is more to your argument that that!

    If we are talking apples and oranges, perhaps another example would be Avalos, a theologian, and Gonzalez, a scientist? Is it possible that the requirements for tenure are different for academics in the arts, compared to those in the sciences? I would imagine the sciences requires much more funding to maintain a laborary (or observatory or whatever), involves publishing in peer-reviewed journals and so on. I doubt anyone expects Avalos to get funding from industry.

  24. Is it that different between universities? Are you claiming that at Gonzales it is relatively easy to get tenure, while at Rob Knop’s college it is very difficult?

    Wow, talk about the Darwinist’s blind spot. I should not be surprise as this coming from Pixie. As a devout atheistic Darwinist, Pixie closes his mind to any rational analysis to inequities for the sake of promoting his atheistic faith. His rash promotion of a professor from a different university than Gonzales’s as an example of fairness at Iowa State is pathetic. His bigoted bias against ID is further demonstrated by his question here. As someone who claims to have a PhD and a working scientist, he should have understood any differences in the guidelines between universities would make his example invalid in the context of this thread. Furthermore, he failed to acknowledge the inequitable application of the tenure guideline for the same pool of professors at Iowa State should be the only basis for comparison. This once again demonstrates why atheists and Darwinists like Pixie is not to be trust when they talk about evolution. Closed mindedness has no place in science but atheists like Pixie is incapable of objective thinking due to their penchant to their blind allegiance to Atheism.

  25. Wow, talk about the Darwinist’s blind spot. I should not be surprise as this coming from Pixie. As a devout atheistic Darwinist, Pixie closes his mind to any rational analysis to inequities for the sake of promoting his atheistic faith.

    I look forward to your rational analysis then.

    His rash promotion of a professor from a different university than Gonzales’s as an example of fairness at Iowa State is pathetic.

    What rash promotion are you talking about, Tel? I did not say anything about a promotion at another university. Perhaps if you could calm down enough to read what I wrote, you might make a bit more sense.

    His bigoted bias against ID is further demonstrated by his question here.

    My question: “Is it that different between universities?” I live in the UK, we have different academic structures here. Therefore it would seem to be a reasonable question. I really do not know the answer.

    As someone who claims to have a PhD and a working scientist, he should have understood any differences in the guidelines between universities would make his example invalid in the context of this thread.

    Ah, so you are saying there is a big difference between universities, some it is easy to get tenure in, some much harder, eg Rob Knop’s.

    Do you think it is reasonable to compare between arts faculties and science faculties? Or was that outside the context of this thread?

    Furthermore, he failed to acknowledge the inequitable application of the tenure guideline for the same pool of professors at Iowa State should be the only basis for comparison. This once again demonstrates why atheists and Darwinists like Pixie is not to be trust when they talk about evolution. Closed mindedness has no place in science but atheists like Pixie is incapable of objective thinking due to their penchant to their blind allegiance to Atheism.

    I have no idea whether Iowa State is considered a good or bad university. I would guess that at lower ranking colleges, thereis less money around, and so less tenured positions available, while at good universities, the competitionis that much higher. In any case, the fact is that at some universities tenure is very hard to get. Can you offer any evidence that tenure is not hard to get at Iowa State?

    If not (and I suspect it is telling that you have not so far), I shall continue to believe that tenure may well be hard to get at Iowa State, and that Gonzalez may well have been refused tenure for reasons other than his support of ID.

    The reality is that we do no know why Gonzalez was refused tenure, and you shrieks of “Closed mindedness” and “bigoted bias” will not change that.

  26. What rash promotion are you talking about, Tel?
    Pixie: The significant point is that this guy is not a creationist and not an IDist. Apparently it is hard to get tenure for everyone.

    For those who are not familiar with Pixie, this is vintage Pix. What some of you may not know is that Pixie besides being an accomplished scientist is also a champion Olympic backstroke swimmer.

    He is like a kid that gets his hand caught in the cookie jar and he would say ” what hand?” . Talking to Pixie can be like . When you catch him with his hand in the cookie jar; he would launch into his backstroke. Pixie would back peddle so fast you might experience the Doppler effect.

  27. I thought I was posting about a guy who gave up academia. What are you talking about?

  28. The other form of ID posits a supernatural designer who created all life in the universe, but is himself external to the universe. I.e., God. To claim that ID does not care about theism is perverse (but political).

    To claim that one form of ID posits a supernatural designer is perverse.

    To try to claim that your scenario does not infinitely regress to the same point that ID regresses to, is also perverse.

    IOW your scenario- the anti-ID position- also regresses to something beyond nature. It cannot be avoided.

    Therefore to hold ID to one standard all the while ignoring your position also leads to the same point, is a double-standard.

    The atheist/theist issue is significant for ID (and for the ID-evolution debate in general).

    One can be an atheist and an IDist.

    But all you have left is sheer dumb luck. And that isn’t scientific.

    No, we have the laws of nature.

    In the anti-ID scenario those laws of nature arose via sheer-dumb-luck. Duh.

    Yeah, well Newton believed in alchemy, so that is no surprise.

    Obviously you don’t understand Newton’s alchemy. No surprise there.

    Nevertheless, the Dover court ruling still stated that ID is creationism in dusguise. IDists had the chance to state their case, and if the judge did not understand them, they can only blame themselves.

    The judge didn’t listen to the IDists. He took what the anti-IDists said as the law without regards to reality.

    There isn’t any way to objectively test the premise that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

    Genetics. In particular of non-coding regions.

    That’s not an objective test. Genetics can be accounted for via convergence and/or common design.

    And I know plenty of IDists who patently do not understand biology, but that does not stop them.

    I know plenty of evolutionists, like you, who patently do not understand biology or what is being debated.

    What advances in astronomy has Gonzalez made? Read his publications.

  29. Yet as it stands today we don’t even know whether or not any amount of mutations can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.

    I bet more Darwinists are looking into that than IDists are looking into how ID happened.

    I bet there aren’t any scientists looking into that. Darwinists don’t care because they already “know” that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

  30. Do they only let you out every couple of months, Joe?

    To claim that one form of ID posits a supernatural designer is perverse.

    Are you saying it is perverse to say there are two forms of ID or to claim that one form posits a supernatural designer?

    Of course, there is really only one ID, which makes the two claims: life was designed; there is evidence life was designed. I was trying to go beyond that, to imagine ID was more akin to science, if you like, and that it offered up hypotheses with substance. Such hypotheses could be classified according to whether the supposed designer was supernatural or not. I really hope you are not disputing that ID allows a supernatural designer…

    To try to claim that your scenario does not infinitely regress to the same point that ID regresses to, is also perverse.

    Strange, I do not remember claiming that. But it was a long time ago; perhaps you can remind me.

    Hmm, a search of the thread reveals that the word “regress” had not appeared previously, so apparently I did not try to claim that.

    Therefore to hold ID to one standard all the while ignoring your position also leads to the same point, is a double-standard.

    Is that the “regress” standard that I never mentioned?

    Pix: The atheist/theist issue is significant for ID (and for the ID-evolution debate in general).

    Joe: One can be an atheist and an IDist.

    And one can be a theist and an ID opponent. Nevertheless, ID is intimately connected to religion. Have you heard of a guy called William Dembski? “Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

    In the anti-ID scenario those laws of nature arose via sheer-dumb-luck. Duh.

    Not so. Those laws could be designed by God. If there is no evidence for that design, then it is not ID. There are plenty of theistic evolutionists out there Joe.

    It could be “sheer dumb luck”. But everything that happened since was not, it was following the laws of natural. Hmm, perhaps you consider any scenario like that to be “sheer dumb luck”; in that case, yes, that is what it is. But then “sheer dumb luck” is merely a glib label (much like “designed” in the ID, I suppose).

    Obviously you don’t understand Newton’s alchemy. No surprise there.

    I should hope that is indeed no surprise! Alchemy does not get taught nowadays in schools or universities, and is generally regarded as pseudo-science.

    The judge didn’t listen to the IDists. He took what the anti-IDists said as the law without regards to reality.

    This was a Christian judge, not listening to people who claim the universe was designed (well, those who turned up, Dembski kept well clear), preferring to listen only to the anti-IDists. Wonder why?

    That’s not an objective test. Genetics can be accounted for via convergence and/or common design.

    Common descent makes the prediction. It is falsified if the prediction fails, and the prediction can be tested objectvely.

  31. I bet there aren’t any scientists looking into that. Darwinists don’t care because they already “know” that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

    Sure they know that. And they know every other credible scientist knows it to. But they are still doing a lot of research into it. I did a PubMed search, and picked out a handfulof papers just from this year (cannot get the links through the anti-spam filter, do a search for “human chimp” at PubMed):

    What makes us human (Homo sapiens)? The challenge of cognitive cross-species comparison.
    How similar are amino acid mutations in human genetic diseases and evolution.
    Evidence for a large double-cruciform DNA structure on the X chromosome of human and chimpanzee.
    Chimpanzee locomotor energetics and the origin of human bipedalism
    Analyses of human-chimpanzee orthologous gene pairs to explore evolutionary hypotheses of aging.
    More genes underwent positive selection in chimpanzee evolution than in human evolution
    Non-random genomic divergence in repetitive sequences of human and chimpanzee in genes of different functional categories.

  32. Here is a news story about Christian “bigots” getting a college lecturer sacked.
    http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070921/NEWS/70921045

    A community college instructor in Red Oak claims he was fired after he told his students that the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be literally interpreted.

    Steve Bitterman, 60, said officials at Southwestern Community College sided with a handful of students who threatened legal action over his remarks in a western civilization class Tuesday. He said he was fired Thursday.

    “I’m just a little bit shocked myself that a college in good standing would back up students who insist that people who have been through college and have a master’s degree, a couple actually, have to teach that there were such things as talking snakes or lose their job,” Bitterman said.

    Bitterman said called the story of Adam and Eve a “fairy tale” in a conversation with a student after the class and was told the students had threatened to see an attorney. He declined to identify any of the students in the class.

    Bitterman said Linda Wild, vice president of academic affairs at Southwest, fired him over the telephone. Wild did not return telephone or email messages Friday. Bitterman said he can think of no other reason college officials would fire him and that Smith, the director of the campus, has previously sat in on his classes and complimented his work.

  33. Let me just take this opportunity to thank Pixie for demonstrating once again what atheistic bigotry will do to a normally rational mind.

    Let the readers of this blog please take notice of what Pixie just called this college and some of its Christian students, “bigots” . Pixie has once again shown what a humongous hypocrite he is. Throughout this thread Pixie never referred to Avalos (an atheist like Pixie) as a bigot even though Avalos unjustly persecuted Gonzales — not for teaching ID, but merely for being sympathetic to ID. And yet, the first chance he gets, Pixie leaps at the chance to label a college and some Christian students as bigots.

    I guess when you are an atheist any attempt to silence you would mean that you are a bigot. On the other hand if you are an atheist persecuting a Christian, you would be justified. This is how despicable some atheists like Pixie have become. I must admit that it may not be Pixie’s fault. Atheism might have so twisted his once gifted mind into a bale of convoluted irrationalism to the point that he doesn’t even realize his own bigotry and illogic, which would explain his adherence to the fairy tale of Darwinian evolution.

  34. Let the readers of this blog please take notice of what Pixie just called this college and some of its Christian students, “bigots” .

    Ah, I think you missed something here. See I used the term “bigots” in scare quotes. The idea was to draw a parallel between that and the incident in the OP. When you thought it was acceptable to use the term without qualification.

    Let me be quite clear that those Christians are “bigots” not bigots (see if you can work out the difference, Tel).

    Pixie has once again shown what a humongous hypocrite he is. Throughout this thread Pixie never referred to Avalos (an atheist like Pixie) as a bigot even though Avalos unjustly persecuted Gonzales — not for teaching ID, but merely for being sympathetic to ID. And yet, the first chance he gets, Pixie leaps at the chance to label a college and some Christian students as bigots.

    The irony here is that I was highlighting hypocrisy! I guess I was too subtle.

    Now Tel has used the term “bigot” for Avalos (where I would not). So I wonder if Tel can tell us if he thinks these Christians are bigots too, as they seem to be doing the same thing?

    I guess when you are an atheist any attempt to silence you would mean that you are a bigot. On the other hand if you are an atheist persecuting a Christian, you would be justified. This is how despicable some atheists like Pixie have become. I must admit that it may not be Pixie’s fault. Atheism might have so twisted his once gifted mind into a bale of convoluted irrationalism to the point that he doesn’t even realize his own bigotry and illogic, which would explain his adherence to the fairy tale of Darwinian evolution.

    So in Tel’s mind, I am “despicable” if I call those Cristians bigots, but not Avalos. I am intrigued to see if Tel is “despicable” too, if he thinks Avalos is bigots, but the Christians are not.

    Or perhaps he has different standards if the situation is reverse (which, of course, was exactly the point of my last post).

  35. Let me be quite clear that those Christians are “bigots” not bigots (see if you can work out the difference, Tel).

    Nice spin Pix. Let the readers know this is also typical of Pixie’s atheistic reflex to covering up his hypocrisy. It was clear what Pixie tried to do, which was to attempt to attack Christians as bigots as a response to me calling Avalos a bigot. I stand by my charge that Avalos is an atheistic bigot for his over the top persecution of Gonzales.

    Or perhaps he has different standards if the situation is reverse

    Actually no, I don’t have any double standards. If the situation was reversed and Christians were doing the despicable acts that Avalos has done, I would also called them bigots. In my other blog I have no qualms in taking other Christians to task, the objectivity that Pixie’s atheistic mind lacks.

    One thing is crystal clear, that is, atheists like Pixie have a double standard that reflects his unfair atheistic ethics. If Pixie can call these Christians bigots he should have called Avalos a bigot a long time ago, instead of defending what Avalos did. Pixie is despicable when he supports this kind of behavior.

  36. Tel, everyone can look up the thread and see I put “bigots” in scare quotes. I think my position is clear to anyone without your blinked vision. Perhaps you need to consider that beam in your own eye?

  37. Obviously I am trying to highlight your hypocrisy to those with an open mind. Putting the word bigots in quotes does nothing to clarify your intentions. Furthermore, the mere fact that you used the word bigot to equate those students with Avalos’ well documented bigoted attack on Dr. Gonzales, who has done nothing to warrant that sort of atheist persecution, is in itself despicable.

  38. Whatever. People can read me comments and decide for themselves. You made your mind up a long time ago, I suspect.

    However, Tel, I am still not clear why you feel justified in called Avalos a bigot, but not the Christians who got this other guy sacked. Sure, you are not going to change my opinion of you, but you might want to explain to other readers.

    Warning: There was some irony in this post. See if you can spot it.

  39. Let’s stay focus on what the issue is. The OP showed why Avalos is an atheistic bigot, but to Pixie, Avalos is not bigoted when IDists are the targets of the attacks. However, Pixie has no problem labeling Christians “bigots” when his cherished atheistic beliefs are attacked.

    IMO, Pixie is a hypocrite and his defense of Avalos and attack on Christians is despicable.

  40. IMO, Pixie is a hypocrite and his defense of Avalos and attack on Christians is despicable.

    Sadly Tel sees everything I post through creationist blinkers. My defence of Avalos on this thread is minimal; in post 8:

    With regards to Te’s second link in the OP, Hector Avalos has responed here to the DI’s claims:
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/avalos_responds.php
    It would seem the DI are just as fond as Tel at distorting the views of atheists!

    That is about as far as my “despicable” “defense of Avalos” goes. Boy, I must be really, really nasty to link to a site giving the other side of the story!

    Then there is my “despicable” “attack on Christians”. Well the reality is that I have made no attack on Christians as a group. I have made comment (an attack if you like) on a very specific group of Christians. But that is quite a different thing. I think the Spanish inquisition were bad, but my sayng that is not an attack on Christians, it is an attack on those Christians involved in the Spanish inquisition. It is somewhat disingenuous of Tel to twist my words to make it seem I am attacking all Christians.

    Let’s stay focus on what the issue is. The OP showed why Avalos is an atheistic bigot…

    Actually the OP does not mention Avalos at all. nor do six out of the seven links. Only the second link mentions him. It is the Discovery Institute who make the argument about Avalos. It is a little dishonest of you to try to take that credit.

    The Discovery Institute is hardly a disinterested party here, let us all note. As they say:

    Avalos has led the charge against Gonzalez and intelligent design on ISU’s campus, helping to draft a 2005 petition denouncing intelligent design that ultimately was signed by more than 120 ISU faculty.

    Perhaps we can see why the DI might want you to think of Avalos as an atheist bigot, regardless of whether he is or not (and I cannot claim to know enogh about him to ba able to say one way or the other).

    Let’s stay focus on what the issue is. The OP showed why Avalos is an atheistic bigot, but to Pixie, Avalos is not bigoted when IDists are the targets of the attacks.

    Perhaps you need to take off those creationist blinkers, Tel, and read what I actually said about Avalos.

    However, Pixie has no problem labeling Christians “bigots” when his cherished atheistic beliefs are attacked.

    Actually I do not particularly cherish my atheist beliefs. They are really just a default position due to a lack of evidence for anything else. If it turned out the Hindus are right, I suspect I would have less trouble accepting that than the average Christian.

    It was, ironically, a certain group of Christians whose “cherished” beliefs were attacked that got that lecturer sacked. Unsurprisingly Tel is unable to explain why Avalos is a bigot but those Christians are not. He might have to address his own double standards if he did.

    I hope they do and see the kind of double standard that Pixie and other atheists use in attacking science and religion.

    I hope they check for themselves what you said about Avalos in the OP proving he is a bigot. I hope they will check for themselves just how little I have supported Avalos. I hope they will check exactly what I said attacking Christians in general. And I hope they will demand that you explain why Avalos is a bigot, but those Christians are not.

  41. It is a slippery slope when one tries to cover up his hypocrisy with further misleading statements. e.g. Pixie said,

    Sadly Tel sees everything I post through creationist blinkers. My defence of Avalos on this thread is minimal; in post 8:

    Does Pixie think the readers of this blog are that stupid? In comment #8 Pixie pointed to a link where Avalos lied (I’ve documented those lies in comment #11) in his response to DI and Pixie condone Avalos’ lies with his statement,

    It would seem the DI are just as fond as Tel at distorting the views of atheists!

    But wait, Pixie’s defense of Avalos is NOT limited to just comment #8 as he would like you to believe. He defended Avalos in comments #16, #19 and #20.

    Pixie just cannot be trusted.

    The OP showed why Avalos is an atheistic bigot, but to Pixie, Avalos is not bigoted when IDists are the targets of the attacks. However, Pixie has no problem labeling Christians “bigots” when his cherished atheistic beliefs are attacked.

    IMO, Pixie is a hypocrite and his defense of Avalos and attack on Christians is despicable.

  42. Oh, Tel, do we really have to go though it in minutae? Okay, here is what I did in all four of those posts.

    Post #8: I said: “With regards to Te’s second link in the OP, Hector Avalos has responed here to the DI’s claims:
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/avalos_responds.php
    It would seem the DI are just as fond as Tel at distorting the views of atheists!

    That “despiable” way I have of finding links to the other side of the story. Apparently that makes me a bigot in Tel’s book.

    Post #16: I quoted what another person – a Christian Associate Professor of Religion – said about Avalos. Again, just presenting the other side of the story. Tel really hates that sneaky, underhand, dishonest and just despicable behavior.

    Post #19: This was a lengthy post responding to Joe, but here is the relevant bit at the end:

    Joe: Hector can hardly be called “ethical” . Just for his role against Gonzalez he is definitely not ethical.
    Pix: Wht was his role against Gonzalez?
    Joe: Could be because Hector is a liar who doesn’t care about the Bible. And I doubt that Hector even understands ID.
    Pix: What makes you think Hector is a liar? And I know plenty of IDists who patently do not understand biology, but that does not stop them.
    Joe: That completely missed the point. Gonzalez has done far more to advance the science of astronomy than Hector has to advance anything.
    Pix: What makes you say that? They work in completely different fields, so it is not easy to compare their output, but Hector has a pretty impressive track record. What advances to astronomy has Gonzalez made?

    So I challenge Joe to support his claims (he never did, by the way, his only respond: “Read his publications”). I also make the claim that Hector has a “pretty impressive [academic] track record”. We can argue that point, but it is not really relevant to whether he is a bigot or to whether I am supporting his bigotry (or whether Tel is a bigot making this thread attacking atheists).

    Post #20: Here is post 20 in its entirety (no mention of Avalos):

    With regards to the Gonzalez tenure incident, here is a blog post by a guy, Rob Knop, who is quitting academia because it is so hard getting tenure (hat tip Joy at Telic Thoughts).
    The significant point is that this guy is not a creationist and not an IDist. Apparently it is hard to get tenure for everyone.

    Now, Tel, you go through it and tell me: Where did I say Avalos was not a bigot? Please, have the decency and the honesty to actually quote me. You spent the time to go through a couple of dozen of my posts on this thread, so really I can only think of why reason why you would not quote me. You cannot find anything I actually said to support your accusation.

    We both know that if you could, you would throw my words back in my face every chance you had. It is what you do. Instead, you are reduced to quibbling about which posts I mentioned Avalos in.

    And still you cannot explain why Avalos is a bigot, but those Christians who got a lecturer sacked are not. What does that say about your honesty?

  43. It would seem the DI are just as fond as Tel at distorting the views of atheists!”
    That “despiable” way I have of finding links to the other side of the story. Apparently that makes me a bigot in Tel’s book.

    Pixie the Master of Obfusaction and Equivocation. Pixie would like to deceive the reader that his citing of the link and using what Avalos said in that link to accuse DI and I of distortion. Regardless, if you agree with him or not, the fact is that he support fully what Avalos is saying. Since Avalos is an atheistic bigot as supported by the facts that I put forth in the OP, Pixie’s support of Avalos is therefore despicable.

    Post #16: I quoted what another person – a Christian Associate Professor of Religion – said about Avalos. Again, just presenting the other side of the story. Tel really hates that sneaky, underhand, dishonest and just despicable behavior.

    Pixie the Master of Obfusaction and Equivocation Do I really need to remind everyone what Pixie said? Pixie: “My defence of Avalos on this thread is minimal; in post 8” This is sneaky. Let’s make this clear. Citing a link in defense of Avalos, is defending Avalos.

    Post #19: This was a lengthy post responding to Joe, but here is the relevant bit at the end:

    Pixie the Master of Obfusaction and Equivocation Pixie: “My defence of Avalos on this thread is minimal; in post 8” That sure seems to be defending Avalos to me and it is not in post 8, is it?

    Post #20: Here is post 20 in its entirety (no mention of Avalos):

    Pixie the Master of Obfusaction and Equivocation Pixie: “My defence of Avalos on this thread is minimal; in post 8” Remember this OP was to address the bigotry against Gonzales and Avalos was a chief persecutor. By attempting to cite a non-related case to discredit the injustice against Gonzales and downplay Avalos’ role in attacking Gonzales, Pixie in essence is using these links to support Avalos and attack Gonzales.

    I don’t think there is any doubt to the reader of this thread what Pixie’s intentions were in these posts. Pixie is despicable to support Avalos attempt to silence an academic voice just because he is sympathetic to ID. He demonstrates his hypocrisy by citing a similar act by Christian and calling them “bigots” without doing the same for Avalos. Finally, he is now attempting to cover-up his hypocrisy by saying his ” defence of Avalos on this thread is minimal; in post 8″ . Despicable.

  44. Okay, I was wrong about it just being post #8. I made a mistake, and I will admit it. I had a quick skim though, and that was all I found. I apologise for that.

    However, let us refer back to post #39, where Tel informs us all what the issue is:

    Let’s stay focus on what the issue is. The OP showed why Avalos is an atheistic bigot, but to Pixie, Avalos is not bigoted when IDists are the targets of the attacks. However, Pixie has no problem labeling Christians “bigots” when his cherished atheistic beliefs are attacked.

    Let us be quite clear that:
    1. The OP does not show why Avalos is an atheist bigot. It does not even mention him.
    2. I have never said Avalos is not a bigot. I do not know. Nor does Tel. Tel is basing his opinion on a single web page by the Discovery Institute (and his own prejudices I suggest).
    3. I described a certain group of Christians as “bigots” in quotes. I was quoting Tel’s use of the term. Those Christians got a lecturer sacked, the same behaviour that Tel accuses Avalos of, and that Tel therefore accuses Avalos of bigotry. I do not know if those Christians are bigots or not. Nor does Tel.

    In support of this accusation, Tel has found four posts in a thread with over 40 posts. One of those four does not even mention Avalos, but in Tel’s twisted logic, I am still a “despicable” atheist bigot for defendng Avalos in that post too.

    In fact, my dispicable behaviour comes down to presenting the other side of the story.

    Let us look at Tel’s behaviour. This thread has the title “Atheist Bigots Abound”. How about that for a prejudiced perspective, before we even read the thread. Right from the start Tel is linking atheism to bigotry.

    What exactly was Avalos’ role in Gonzales failure for tenure? All we have to go on is a link in the OP to a web page (just one of seven links) by the Discovery Institute (DI). According to that page, Avalos organised an anti-ID petition, so the DI have an axe to grind with him. And let us not forget that Gonzales is a senior fellow at the DI Center for Science and Culture. So another reason why we might expect the DI article sto show some bias. But perhaps we should look at what the article actually says Avalos did with respect to Gonzales. Here is the article:

    Iowa State Promotes Atheist Professor Who Equates Bible with Mein Kampf While Denying Tenure to ID Astronomer.

    While Iowa State University denied tenure this spring to gifted pro-ID astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, it turns out that it decided at the same time to promote to full professor outspoken atheist Hector Avalos, religious studies professor and faculty adviser to the ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society.

    Nothing so far to suggest Avalos was involved in the denial of tenure.

    Avalos has led the charge against Gonzalez and intelligent design on ISU’s campus, helping to draft a 2005 petition denouncing intelligent design that ultimately was signed by more than 120 ISU faculty.

    So two years before the denial of tenure, Avalos got up a petition against ID. Good for him, and I am happy to go on record as supporting that. Nothing to suggest he directly had a hand in denial of tenure, though the petition might have been an influencing factor (as could the Dover court case, the various antics of IDists and, well, the fact that ID is pseudo-science).

    The rest of the article paints Avalos as a Bible-hating bigot, but makes no further attempt to link Avalos to the denial of tenure for Gonzales. I do not know if the portrait the DI paints is fair or not. Personally, I treat everything the DI says as suspect (of course I have my own prejudices, but I can find some very dodgy quotes by DI fellows if we want to go down that road), and so I gave a link presenting the other side of the story (here). Anyone is then free to read both sides and make up their own mind.

    Tel does not care. He has decided long ago that atheists are bigots, and the DI web page bolsters that bigoted opinion. So in his mind, it must be true. And anyone daring to present an alternative side to the story, well, they are clearly atheist bigots too. Oh, and insincere and the rest.

    And still he cannot say why Avalos is a bigot, but those Christians who got a lecturer sacked are not. I keep asking the question, and he keeps ignoring it. Why is that? I think we all know the answer. In Tel’s head, Avalos is because he is an atheist, those Christians are not because they are Christians.

    Pix: Post #20: Here is post 20 in its entirety (no mention of Avalos):

    Tel: Pixie the Master of Obfusaction and Equivocation Pixie: “My defence of Avalos on this thread is minimal; in post 8” Remember this OP was to address the bigotry against Gonzales and Avalos was a chief persecutor. By attempting to cite a non-related case to discredit the injustice against Gonzales and downplay Avalos’ role in attacking Gonzales, Pixie in essence is using these links to support Avalos and attack Gonzales.

    Right, so if I say there could be another explanation about why Gonzalez failed to get tenure, that makes me an atheuist bigot” you think? This is what I said in post #20:

    With regards to the Gonzalez tenure incident, here is a blog post by a guy, Rob Knop, who is quitting academia because it is so hard getting tenure (hat tip Joy at Telic Thoughts).
    The significant point is that this guy is not a creationist and not an IDist. Apparently it is hard to get tenure for everyone.

    Really, Tel, you are grasping at straws when you are claiming I am defending Avalos in a post that does not mention him.

  45. Pixie the Master of Obfusaction and Equivocation

    Pixie’s strategy is to continue to spew out his irrelevant diatribe in the hopes of detracting from the focus of the OP and now his despicable behavior of defending atheistic bigots like himself.

    Let’s get back to the OP. Do you think it is fair for a group of atheists to persecute an accomplished associate professor for no other reason other than the fact that he is sympathetic to ID? Their bigotry resulted in the university’s denial for his application for tenure. The OP was not exhaustive in providing the supporting evidence of this atheistic bigotry, but it should have been sufficient to make this case.

    What follows in the comment area is Pixie’s despicable attempt to defend his like minded atheists’ despicable behavior and his hypocrisy of attacking Christians as “bigots” . When he got caught in his hypocritical duplicity, he then tries to blow smoke and waste people’s time by asking why it is justify calling Avalos a bigot. Why should anyone waste time to respond to his attempt of circuitous detraction? The case has already been made in the OP, if he has a problem with the specifics in the evidences that was presented let him provide his own evidence to dispute his like minded atheists’ bigoted behavior. I will not waste my time to repeat what DI has so eloquently presented Dr. Gonzales’ overwhelming qualification and evidence of his deserved tenure and how these atheist bigots have deny his tenure for his personal and non-academic related views.

  46. Pixie the Master of Obfusaction and Equivocation

    Is it not curious that the brave and honest Christian has a web page dedicated to my character assassination on which I cannot respond? So let us talk about bigotry then…

    Let’s get back to the OP. Do you think it is fair for a group of atheists to persecute an accomplished associate professor for no other reason other than the fact that he is sympathetic to ID?

    Do you think it is fair for a group of Christans to persecute a lecturer for no other reason other than the fact that he was disrepectful of Christianity? You still cannot answer that one, can you Tel? You hide behind the fact that it was not in the OP, because you know it is just as bigoted (or not) as the Gonzalez case. Pathetic. Well, I am not shy of the hard questions, and I will attempt to answer yours.

    If we are talking specifically about the Gonzalez case, then I wonder what makes you think the commitee were all atheists. Are you aware that atheists are heavily outnumbered by Christians? I suspect less so in academia, but it would be dubious to assume the whole commitee was atheist.

    It is worth remembering that many Christians are anti-ID (indeed, some creationists are anti-ID). Here is a web site of a Christian who is actively anti-ID.

    Is Gonzales merely “sympathetic to” ID? Or is he perhaps a staunch supporter? Let us see what the Discovery Institute says about him (and my apologises to him, I realise I have been spelling his name wrong). well, it turns out that Gonzalez is not just sympathetic to ID, but is a senior fellw of the most prominent ID organisation in the world, with recognised links to creationism. Oh, and he has written an ID book (and I would define an ID book as a book marketed at IDists as supporting ID).

    So perhaps you have put a bit of spin in your question? I think I would prefer to answer this one: Do you think it is fair for a group of theists and atheists to persecute an accomplished associate professor for no other reason other than the fact that he is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, the most prominent ID organisation and author of an ID book?

    And I shall answer “yes”. ID is not science. Mainstream ID, as promoted by the DI, is pseudo-science. It has no specific hypotheses, it has no predictions, it has no one doing any research that anyone has ever seen. It has strong roots in creationism. The more prominent IDists are know to play fast and loose with the truth, in particular with quoting people out of context and then misrepresenting (Iand I think we all know how despicable you find that Tel). I have no reason to suppose Gonzalez is guilty of that, but other senior fellows of the DI certainly do. Gonzalez is associating himself with a guy who portrays a high court judge (a Christian, by the way, not an atheist) as a farting puppet just because ID lost a court case. If Gonzalez wants his name associated with the DI, then that is his choice. But in doing so he taints his name. And I can fully understand why no university would want the embarassment of having their name connected to the DI by even the most tenuous of links.

    That said, we do not know the details. There may be other factors that were more or less important.

    Their bigotry resulted in the university’s denial for his application for tenure. The OP was not exhaustive in providing the supporting evidence of this atheistic bigotry, but it should have been sufficient to make this case.

    As far as I can see, the sentiment was anti-ID (and deservedly so), and could have been by Christians and atheists alike.

  47. An atheist like Pixie with his jaundice view of Christians and his blind support for other atheist bigots would continue to mock Christians. Isn’t it curious when you list the evidences for hypocrisy and bigotry of an atheist like Pixie that he would call that character assassination, but he has no problem with calling Christians “bigots” when an atheist mocks and insults them?

    If we are talking specifically about the Gonzalez case, then I wonder what makes you think the commitee were all atheists. Are you aware that atheists are heavily outnumbered by Christians? I suspect less so in academia, but it would be dubious to assume the whole commitee was atheist.

    This is the best that Pixie has to offer to dispute the case presented by DI? I doubt there are any Christians in this group.

    It is worth remembering that many Christians are anti-ID (indeed, some creationists are anti-ID). Here is a web site of a Christian who is actively anti-ID.

    That’s funny. I am an atheist who believes in a personal God and the literal reading of the Bible. Isn’t it interesting how Christians and atheists can call themselves whatever they want? Again, is this the best that Pixie has to offer to justify his like minded atheist bigots? Let us remember I am not criticizing Pixie as a Christian but as an atheist.

    Is Gonzales merely “sympathetic to” ID?

    Is this the best evidence that Pixie have to support his like minded atheist bigots? And is sympathetic antithetical with “strong support” or can they be complementary?

    Do you think it is fair for a group of theists and atheists to persecute an accomplished associate professor for no other reason other than the fact that he is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, the most prominent ID organisation and author of an ID book?

    And I shall answer “yes” . ID is not science. Mainstream ID, as promoted by the DI, is pseudo-science.

    Well, now we can add Pixie into that list of bigots in Iowa. So the bigot Pixie would deny freedom and tenure to an accomplished professor and scientist just because he “strongly supports” ID, but has no connection with teaching and involving ID in his academic courses.

    We also can clearly see the doubt standard of his bigotry that causes him to attack Gonzales and call Christians “bigots” for similar actions. Pixie is truly despicable.

  48. An atheist like Pixie with his jaundice view of Christians and his blind support for other atheist bigots would continue to mock Christians. Isn’t it curious when you list the evidences for hypocrisy and bigotry of an atheist like Pixie that he would call that character assassination, but he has no problem with calling Christians “bigots” when an atheist mocks and insults them?

    So there you go twisting my words to support your bigotry. I called those Christians bigots in quotes. I was quiting your use of the word. They seem to be doing the same as you claim Avalos did, and you called him a bigot. You continue to dodge the question about why that is.

    This is the best that Pixie has to offer to dispute the case presented by DI? I doubt there are any Christians in this group.

    I doubt there are any Christians in the ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society either. Have you anything besides insinuation that any of those people were on the commitee that refused tenure to Gonzalez? I assume not, else you would have posted it. So is this the best you can do?

    Pix: It is worth remembering that many Christians are anti-ID (indeed, some creationists are anti-ID). Here is a web site of a Christian who is actively anti-ID.

    Tel: That’s funny. I am an atheist who believes in a personal God and the literal reading of the Bible. Isn’t it interesting how Christians and atheists can call themselves whatever they want? Again, is this the best that Pixie has to offer to justify his like minded atheist bigots? Let us remember I am not criticizing Pixie as a Christian but as an atheist.

    Are you really claiming Edward Babinski is not a Christian? On what basis, he disagrees with you and agrees with me that ID is pseudo-science. Are you really claiming that all Christians are IDists?

    Is this the best evidence that Pixie have to support his like minded atheist bigots? And is sympathetic antithetical with “strong support” or can they be complementary?

    No, but it is good evidence of your attempt to spin. To say that Gonzalez is “sympathetic to” ID is hardly an honest representation of his connection to ID.

    Well, now we can add Pixie into that list of bigots in Iowa. So the bigot Pixie would deny freedom and tenure to an accomplished professor and scientist just because he “strongly supports” ID, but has no connection with teaching and involving ID in his academic courses.

    Let me assure you that my particular “bigotry” extends to all scientists in education who actively support alchemy, homeopathy, astrology, the supernatural or yogic flying as science.

  49. So there you go twisting my words to support your bigotry. I called those Christians bigots in quotes. I was quiting your use of the word. They seem to be doing the same as you claim Avalos did, and you called him a bigot. You continue to dodge the question about why that is.

    Pixie can keep spinning this lie all day long and it won’t change the fact of what he said, that is, Here is a news story about Christian “bigots” getting a college lecturer sacked. Anyone can see in his comment that it makes no mention that he was referring to my use of the word. It is clear that his intention is to refer to those Christians as bigots while his atheistic double standard would absolve Avalos and him from any such criticism.

    Have you anything besides insinuation that any of those people were on the commitee that refused tenure to Gonzalez?

    Does Pixie have any evidence that those Christians in his were on the committee to fire that professor?

    Are you really claiming Edward Babinski is not a Christian? On what basis

    Are you saying I am not an atheist? On what basis, because I disagree with you on ID, think Darwinian evolution is pseudo-science and belief in a personal God?

    No, but it is good evidence of your attempt to spin. To say that Gonzalez is “sympathetic to” ID is hardly an honest representation of his connection to ID.

    Do you mean the way that you spin Do you understand what the difference is between “compatible with” and “identical to” ?
    As for my use of those words, why do you go and debate it with MWDictionary.
    Function: adjective
    1 : existing or operating through an affinity, interdependence, or mutual association
    2 a : appropriate to one’s mood, inclinations, or disposition b : marked by kindly or pleased appreciation <the biographer’s approach was sympathetic>
    3 : given to, marked by, or arising from sympathy , compassion, friendliness, and sensitivity to others’ emotions <a sympathetic gesture>
    4 : favorably inclined : APPROVING <not sympathetic to the idea>
    5 a : showing empathy b : arousing sympathy or compassion <a sympathetic role in the play>
    6 a : of or relating to the sympathetic nervous system b : mediated by or acting on the sympathetic nerves
    7 : relating to musical tones produced by sympathetic vibration or to strings so tuned as to sound by sympathetic vibration

    Function: transitive verb
    1 : to endure bravely or quietly : BEAR
    2 a (1) : to promote the interests or cause of (2) : to uphold or defend as valid or right : ADVOCATE <supports fair play> (3) : to argue or vote for <supported the motion to lower taxes> b (1) : ASSIST, HELP <bombers supported the ground troops> (2) : to act with (a star actor) (3) : to bid in bridge so as to show support for c : to provide with substantiation : CORROBORATE <support an alibi>
    3 a : to pay the costs of : MAINTAIN <support a family> b : to provide a basis for the existence or subsistence of <the island could probably support three — A. B. C. Whipple> <support a habit>
    4 a : to hold up or serve as a foundation or prop for b : to maintain (a price) at a desired level by purchases or loans; also : to maintain the price of by purchases or loans
    5 : to keep from fainting, yielding, or losing courage : COMFORT
    6 : to keep (something) going

    Go spin that Pixie.

    Let me assure you that my particular “bigotry” extends to all scientists in education who actively support alchemy, homeopathy, astrology, the supernatural or yogic flying as science.

    So you are a bigot with a long list of biases which also includes the rejection of tenure for professors who support ID and no freedom of speech for Christians who criticize atheists that make fun of their beliefs. Pixie is truly despicable.

  50. Grow up, Tel. I clearly put bigot in quotes, and you even quoted those quotes, so it is a downright lie to say “Anyone can see in his comment that it makes no mention that he was referring to my use of the word.” Unless you do not know what quote marks indicate?

    And still Tel cannot explain why Avalos is a bigot, but those Christians are not!

    Does Pixie have any evidence that those Christians in his were on the committee to fire that professor?

    Ooo, sneaky. The old shifting the burden of proof fallacy. I was not the one making the claim that it was specifically atheists who stopped tenure for Gonzalez.

    Are you saying I am not an atheist? On what basis, because I disagree with you on ID, think Darwinian evolution is pseudo-science and belief in a personal God?

    Did I say you were not an atheist? I cannot remember. But, Yes, I think you are not an atheist. I am not sure what you are getting at. Earlier you said “One of my best friends is an atheist.” The implication was that you are not.

    Do you understand what the difference is between “compatible with” and “identical to” ?

    I do, yes.

    As for my use of those words, why do you go and debate it with MWDictionary.

    Ah, that is the magic of spin. What you said is technically true, but rather misleading. Would you say PZ is sympathetic towards atheism? I doubt it, because that would spin it the wrong way.

    So you are a bigot with a long list of biases which also includes the rejection of tenure for professors who support ID and no freedom of speech for Christians who criticize atheists that make fun of their beliefs.

    It is not really a long list, it can be summed as:

    1. scientists who actively promote pseudo-science working in academia
    2. hypocrites who, for instance, complain about atheists stopping an IDist getting tenure but not about Christians getting a lecturer sacked

    I have no problem with freedom of speech for Christians, even when they criticize atheists that make fun of their beliefs.

  51. Grow up, Tel. I clearly put bigot in quotes, and you even quoted those quotes, so it is a downright lie to say “Anyone can see in his comment that it makes no mention that he was referring to my use of the word.” Unless you do not know what quote marks indicate?

    You are the liar with your attempt to twist what you’ve said into my words. What in this entire quote did you attribute the word bigots to me? Pixie: Here is a news story about Christian “bigots” getting a college lecturer sacked.

    You labeled them “bigots” and you used the quotation marks to highlight i.e., draw attention to the word “bigots” . You made no attribution of that it was a quote of from me.

    And still Tel cannot explain why Avalos is a bigot

    Are you blind?

    I was not the one making the claim that it was specifically atheists who stopped tenure for Gonzalez.

    And yet you called use that link to imply those Christians fired the professor and labeled them “bigots” . Again there is no point in me trying to address any of your inane questions directly when they have already been eloquently addressed by the links in the OP. It might help if you’ve actually read the information that was provided to you.

    Frankly, Pixie doesn’t even deserve the time that I spent so far to address any of his inane diatribe because he is such an insincere debater. I make this minimal effort in the unlikely possibility that a reader might be confuse by his
    misdirections.

    But, Yes, I think you are not an atheist.

    Why? On what basis, because I disagree with you on ID, think Darwinian evolution is pseudo-science and belief in a personal God?

    Would you say PZ is sympathetic towards atheism?

    Actually yes. However, I would not argue that he is a fanatical support of atheism either. So?

  52. You labeled them “bigots” and you used the quotation marks to highlight i.e., draw attention to the word “bigots” . You made no attribution of that it was a quote of from me.

    Are you a mind reader, Tel? You claim to be able to diascern exactly what I was thinking when I post. Here, you are sure I was using quotes to draw attention. On that other thread, you seem convinced I meant evolution, when I said “common descent”. And on the basis of your paranormal abilities, you feel justified in calling me a liar.

    The truth is that I do not use quotes to highlight or draw attention. I use italics and bold. Check through my posts and see for ypur self. You could start with this very paragraph. Or look at the previous, where I yuse quotes around something I said elsewhere, and italics for highlighting.

    I did not attribute the quote to you, no. I thought it was obvious (and boy do I feel foolish for that). It is a word you use with some frequency. You used it in the title of the thread, for a start, and I think when I made that post you were the only person on this thread to have used the word.

    Pix: I was not the one making the claim that it was specifically atheists who stopped tenure for Gonzalez.
    Tel: And yet you called use that link to imply those Christians fired the professor and labeled them “bigots” .

    I have no idea why you imagine that addresses my point.

    You made the claim that it was atheists who blocked Gonzalez’ tenure. The burden of proof is on your to support the claim, or withdraw it. And your whole argument would seem to based on that premise. This thread is going to look pretty stupid if it was a commitee of Christians who refused him tenure.

  53. Pix: Would you say PZ is sympathetic towards atheism?

    Tel: Actually yes.

    Actually no. What you actually said was:

    Tel on PZ Myers: The (in)famous PZ Myers, well-known ID critic and staunch Darwinist and philosophical naturalist

    Compare and contrast.

    Tel on Gonzalez: … Avalos unjustly persecuted Gonzales — not for teaching ID, but merely for being sympathetic to ID.

    Now Dictionary.com defines “merely” as: only as specified and nothing more. So when says Gonzalez is merely sympathetic to ID, he is telling us that Gonzalaz is sympathetic to ID, but that it goes no further than that.

    And that is lie, isn’t Tel?

    Gonzalez in most definitely not merely “sympathetic to ID”. He is a senior fellow in the Discovery Institute and has furthermore written an ID book.

  54. Are you a mind reader, Tel? You claim to be able to diascern exactly what I was thinking when I post.

    I didn’t have to read you mind. The way you use the quotation marks is indicative of drawing attention to the text and not intended as a reference to other works. You made no indication for any alternative meaning of the word “bigots” .

    I am willing to accept that maybe you didn’t mean to call them bigots and we have a difference in language usage between the US and the UK, or perhaps our individual understanding for the usage of the quotations marks.

    It is a word you use with some frequency. You used it in the title of the thread

    I don’t know how frequently I use the word but I do not apologize for my usage of the word in this OP. What the atheists did at Iowa State to Gonzalez is bigoted and anti-freedom. It is despicable.

    You made the claim that it was atheists who blocked Gonzalez’ tenure. The burden of proof is on your to support the claim, or withdraw it.

    My response was intended to point to your hypocrisy assuming that you had called those Christians bigots for similar actions to the atheists at Iowa.

    I am not sure if I agree with what that college did but there is a difference between what Bitterman and Gonzalez’ situation. Bitterman was actively engage in a teaching environment and promulgating his view of Christianity without any balance to a captive audience. Some students found what he taught insulting as they should.

    However, Gonzalez never taught a class on science presenting ID and denigrating the predominate view of astronomy. Gonzalez was denied tenure not because of his academic deficiency but because some atheists decided that they don’t want to give ID the prestige of having another tenure professor. This type of oppression is bigot and dare I say un-American.

    Tel on PZ Myers: The (in)famous PZ Myers, well-known ID critic and staunch Darwinist and philosophical naturalist

    Put the rest of what I said back in, ” However, I would not argue that he is a fanatical support of atheism either.” I see no conflict between the two. If someone tells me that Myers is only sympathetic to Atheism and not a radical atheistic evangelist then I would have a problem with that.

    Gonzalez in most definitely not merely “sympathetic to ID” .

    It is true that Gonzalez is a senior fellow in DI but honestly I don’t know how strongly he supports ID. Gonzalez does not pop into my mind in the same way that Behe or Dembski does when you say “strong” supporter of ID.

    Be that as it may, you confuse his personal view with his academic view. I actually probably used too strong of a word when I said Gonzalez was “sympathetic” to ID. Actually ID was not involved at all as far as his application for tenure is concerned. The fact to the matter is that even if Gonzalez is some counterpart to Myers, it makes not a wit of difference, because he never involved ID in his academic works. If you are going to fire Gonzalez for his view on ID then why not fire Myers for his view on Atheism. I suspect Myers actually pushes Atheism in his classes unlike Gonzalez who makes no references to ID in his.

    P.S. I also apologize for spelling Dr. Gonzalez’s name incorrectly before.

  55. It is true that Gonzalez is a senior fellow in DI but honestly I don’t know how strongly he supports ID.

    Now I know you are living in cloud-cuckoo land. It is specifically the CSC part of the DI he is a senior fellow of, you know, the ID bit. What do they, hand out free with the corn flakes?

    Did you know he wrote an ID book, Tel?

    Come on. Gonzalez has to be one of the top twenty most significant IDists in the world. He is definitely one of the top 14 in the DI CSC. To say he is merely sympathetic to ID is, well, dishonest, assuming you know anything about the ID movement.

  56. Now I know you are living in cloud-cuckoo land. It is specifically the CSC part of the DI he is a senior fellow of, you know, the ID bit. What do they, hand out free with the corn flakes?

    Your prejudice toward ID has blinded you objectivity. What do you think a fellow in the DI means? Sure he wrote a book supporting ID but did it generate as much controversy as Behe’s or Dembski’s books? I don’t think so. Is he as active in the speaking circuit as B&D? No. There is a long list of DI fellows, most of them I never heard of.

    Gonzalez might be a lot more prominent than I thought, but that is not the point is it? I have already conceded that even if he is a strong supporter of ID, so what? It still will not change the fact that those atheists in Iowa State are bigots.

  57. Your prejudice toward ID has blinded you objectivity. What do you think a fellow in the DI means? Sure he wrote a book supporting ID but did it generate as much controversy as Behe’s or Dembski’s books? I don’t think so. Is he as active in the speaking circuit as B&D? No. There is a long list of DI fellows, most of them I never heard of.

    The Discovery Institute is involved in several issues. What we are concerned with is the arm that promotes ID, the ironically named Center for Science and Culture (CSC). I say this for the benfit of lurkers. I am sure you are well aware of this, Tel. For one thing, you quoted me saying “It is specifically the CSC part of the DI he is a senior fellow“.

    Conveniently, the DI CSC publish a list of fellows (here):

    Program Directors
    Stephen C Meyer

    Associate Directors
    John G West

    Senior Fellows
    Michael J Behe
    David Berlinski
    Paul Chien
    William A Dembski
    David DeWolf
    Guillermo Gonzalez
    Michael Newton Keas
    Jay W Richards
    Wesley J Smith
    Jonathan Wells
    Benjamin Wiker
    Jonathan Witt

    Fellows
    Raymond Bohlin
    Walter Bradley
    J. Budziszewski
    John Angus Campbell
    Robert Lowry Clinton
    Jack Collins
    William Lane Craig
    Brian Frederick
    Mark Hartwig
    Kenneth Hermann
    Cornelius G. Hunter
    Robert Kaita
    Dean Kenyon
    Robert C Koons
    Forrest M Mims
    Scott Minnich
    J.P. Moreland
    Paul Nelson
    Nancy Pearcey
    Joseph Poulshock
    Pattle Pak-Toe Pun
    John Mark Reynolds
    Henry F Schaefer III
    Geoffrey Simmons
    Wolfgang Smith
    Charles Thaxton
    Richard Weikart

    Program Advisors
    Phillip E Johnson

    Staff
    Robert L Crowther
    Robert L. Crowther, II
    Janine Dixon
    Anika Smith
    Kelley J. Unger

    I am not sure where Johnson fits in the hierarchy, but higher up than his placing above might suggust. Together with Meyer, West and twelve senior fellows, these are the fifteen most important IDists in the DI CSC. Of that there can be no doubt. The DI CSC places Gonzalez above the likes of Thaxton, Nelson, Minnich. He is that important to them (unless you can think of another reason he is a senior fellow and Forrest Mims is not?). And the only significant IDist I can think of who is missing from that list is Denton. So again I will make the claim that Gonzalez is one of the top twenty most important IDists in the world. And again I will say that to claim he is merely sympathetic to ID is either dishonest or truly ignorant.

    So may be you can tell me what being a senior fellow means, and can explain why Gonzalez is a senior fellow, despite being merely sympathetic to ID, while Richard Weikart and Cornelius Hunter are only fellows. But until then…

  58. For one thing, you quoted me saying “It is specifically the CSC part of the DI he is a senior fellow”.

    Again your prejudices made you see something that isn’t there. Are there any other types of fellows in DI? Yet Gonzalez violated no academic rules at Iowa State to justify the denial for his tenure. The irony is only in your jaundice mind and I say this for the benefit of the lurkers.

    while explain why Gonzalez is a senior fellow, despite being merely sympathetic to ID, while Richard Weikart and Cornelius Hunter are only fellows.

    I have no idea. The last time I checked “teleologist” is not a member of that prestigious group, and frankly I don’t think you know either. His senior title might be because he’s been with the organization longer. Maybe he donated more money than the others to DI. Your prejudice toward DI makes your characterization of them unreliable. I think you would be pretty hard pressed to argue that Gonzalez is more important than Paul Nelson to DI, and Nelson is only a fellow.

  59. Again your prejudices made you see something that isn’t there. Are there any other types of fellows in DI?

    Yes there, Tel, and thanks for asking. There are fellows associated with other parts of the DI, the non-ID parts. Gonzalez is most definitely in the ID part. And there are two tiers, there are fellows and senior fellows. And Gonzales ranks as a senior fellow.

    So your claim that he is merely sympathic to ID is an obvious lie. It is sad you do not have the moral fortitude to admit it, now that you have been found out.

    Yet Gonzalez violated no academic rules at Iowa State to justify the denial for his tenure.

    Does your dishonesty know no bounds? You are putting words in my mouth Tel. I never said he had broken any rules by being a senior fellow of the DI CSC and author of an ID book. My objection was that you lied about his ID connections.

    I have no idea. The last time I checked “teleologist” is not a member of that prestigious group, and frankly I don’t think you know either. His senior title might be because he’s been with the organization longer. Maybe he donated more money than the others to DI.

    So you think he has perhaps donated a significant sum of money to earn the title of senior fellow? I thought the point of a fellowship was they have you the money, but perhaps you are right. Still, it is still a lie to say he is merely sympathic to ID when he contributed significant funds to the movement. And wrote an ID book.

    Your prejudice toward DI makes your characterization of them unreliable. I think you would be pretty hard pressed to argue that Gonzalez is more important than Paul Nelson to DI, and Nelson is only a fellow.

    My point is that Gonzalez is important; I do not really care how important. That he is a senior fellow indicates that he definitely is important. And let us not forget that he has published an ID book. I hope you are not going to pretend you did not know he wrote Priviledged Planet, or that it is not an ID book (“how our place in the cosmos is designed. for discovery”).

    So you lied when you said he was merely sympathetic to ID.

  60. Yes there, Tel, and thanks for asking. There are fellows associated with other parts of the DI, the non-ID parts. Gonzalez is most definitely in the ID part.

    Well then you know more than I do but forgive me if I don’t just take your word for it. Why don’t you provide the evidence that shows these classifications?

    Does your dishonesty know no bounds? You are putting words in my mouth Tel. I never said he had broken any rules by being a senior fellow of the DI CSC and author of an ID book. My objection was that you lied about his ID connections.

    Of course Pixie didn’t say Gonzalez broke any rules. I never accused him of saying it. Maybe his jaundice Atheism is affecting his mind more than I thought. This is what happens when an atheist like Pixie is exposed as a bigot. Because of his belief and adherence to Atheism he will resort to lying and smearing others to divert attention from his own bigotry. Atheists like Pixie has no justifiable moral code that he needs to live by. He has no problem with lying, bigotry or even denying someone else’s freedom.

    It is because Pixie knows that Gonzalez hasn’t broken any academic rules to deny his application for tenure, this makes Pixie all the more despicable. His support and defense of his fellow atheists in their persecution of Gonzalez for no justifiable reason, other than Gonzalez’s dissent from their atheistic Darwinian fairy tales, is demonstrative of how far atheists like Pixie will go.

  61. Well then you know more than I do but forgive me if I don’t just take your word for it. Why don’t you provide the evidence that shows these classifications?

    Of course you will not believe me; you have your own prejudices to deal with. What you could do – if you really were interested in the truth – was to read and I wrote and fillow the link to the DI web site to determine if it was true or not.

    You see, Tel, I have already provided the evidence that clearly shows these classifications. It is in post #57. Not that far up the thread. Here is the link. Again.

    http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php

    You can refer to post #57 for a list of fellows in the DI CSC, or go to that link; I won’t bother repeating it in this thread.

    What is, well, surprising shall we say, is that in post #58 you quote me. You quote what I said in post #57 above the list, and youi quote what I said in post #57 below the list. And then you have the gall to pretend I have not presented any evidence.

    Tel: Yet Gonzalez violated no academic rules at Iowa State to justify the denial for his tenure.

    Pix: Does your dishonesty know no bounds? You are putting words in my mouth Tel. I never said he had broken any rules by being a senior fellow of the DI CSC and author of an ID book. My objection was that you lied about his ID connections.

    Tel: Of course Pixie didn’t say Gonzalez broke any rules. I never accused him of saying it.

    Sorry, I misunderstood your point then.

    It is because Pixie knows that Gonzalez hasn’t broken any academic rules to deny his application for tenure, this makes Pixie all the more despicable. His support and defense of his fellow atheists in their persecution of Gonzalez for no justifiable reason, other than Gonzalez’s dissent from their atheistic Darwinian fairy tales, is demonstrative of how far atheists like Pixie will go.

    It is becoming more and more apparent that you have slanted this story to fit your own propaganda.

    1. Tenure is not automatic, it is selective. To argue that Gonzalez should get tenutre because he broke no rules is like arguing you should get a promotion because you broke no rules.

    2. Despite Tel’s continung insistence, we have no reason to suppose that the commitee that refused tenure were all atheists or even that any were atheists. The truth isd that we do not know what their beliefs were.

    3. Tel is lying when he claims Gonzalez is merely sympathetic to ID. The truth is that Gonzalez is a very significant in the ID movement, arguably in the top 20 most significant IDists in the world.

    4. ID – as promoted by the Discovery Institute, where Gonzalez is a senior fellow – is a pseudo-science, and the scientific standing and judgement of anyone strongly supporting a pseudo-science (whether it is homeopathy, astrology or UFOology) should be questioned.

    5. The Discovery Institute, where Gonzalez is a senior fellow, has a long track record of misrepresenting (deliberately most people believe) the views of mainsteam scientists (and we all know how you hate quote-mining, Tel). If Gonzalez strongly supports the Discovery Institute, then he is condoning that activity, and should not be surprised when the scentific community takes a stand against him.

  62. Teleo: Again your prejudices made you see something that isn’t there. Are there any other types of fellows in DI?

    Pixie: Yes there, Tel, and thanks for asking. There are fellows associated with other parts of the DI, the non-ID parts. Gonzalez is most definitely in the ID part. And there are two tiers, there are fellows and senior fellows. And Gonzales ranks as a senior fellow.

    Teleo: Well then you know more than I do but forgive me if I don’t just take your word for it. Why don’t you provide the evidence that shows these classifications?

    Pixie: Of course you will not believe me; you have your own prejudices to deal with. What you could do – if you really were interested in the truth – was to read and I wrote and fillow the link to the DI web site to determine if it was true or not.

    You see, Tel, I have already provided the evidence that clearly shows these classifications. It is in post #57. Not that far up the thread. Here is the link. Again.

    http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php

    I will let the readers be the judge if this so called evidence identifies which part of DI does each fellow belongs.

    It is becoming more and more apparent that you have slanted this story to fit your own propaganda.

    The OP had provided sufficient evidences of Iowa State’s atheistic bigotry.

    What follows in the comment area is Pixie’s despicable attempt to defend other atheist bigots. Why should anyone waste time to respond to his attempt of circuitous detraction? The case has already been made in the OP, if he has a problem with the specifics in the evidences that was presented let him provide his own evidence to dispute what was presented in the OP and support his fellow bigoted atheists. I will not waste my time to repeat what DI had so eloquently presented, that is, Dr. Gonzales’ overwhelming qualification and evidences for his deserved tenure and how those atheist bigots have deny his tenure for his personal and non-academic related views.

  63. Well I will just point out to readers that the URL is:
    http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php
    That CSC bit in the middle, that stands for Center for Science and Culture. So that page is “fellows”, in the “CSC” of the “Discovery” Institute. Just from the URL you quoted, Tel. And if you actually follow the link…

  64. So that page is “fellows” , in the “CSC” of the “Discovery” Institute.

    Let remind the reader for the umpteenth time what is in question here.
    Teleo: Are there any other types of fellows in DI?

    Pixie: Yes there, Tel, and thanks for asking. There are fellows associated with other parts of the DI, the non-ID parts.

    I will ask the readers to please look at the link once again and tell me if they see any of these, other parts of the DI, fellows. Obviously, according to Pixie I didn’t follow the link so maybe one of the readers of this blog can follow the link for me and tell me if they see where it identifies that there are fellows that are associated with this other parts of the DI, the non-ID parts, that Pixie is talking about.

  65. You were not too clear what it was you were querying. Before you said “I will let the readers be the judge if this so called evidence identifies which part of DI does each fellow belongs.” And that page makes it clear that every person listed is a part of the CSC, so it does indeed identify which part of the DI the listed people belong to – the CSC. And really we are only interested in Gonzalez; why bother with the other parts? Before that you asked “Are there any other types of fellows in DI?“? “Types” is a little vague. One type is senior fellow. Apparently that was not what you meant.

    This link gives a list of fellows of the DI itself:
    http://www.discovery.org/fellows/
    Ths is a very different list. The only name I recognise is Meyer (who is on the CSC list too, of course).

    This link lists the Cascadia fellows (invoved in transportation issues):
    http://www.discovery.org/cascadia/contact.php

    And the Technology and Democracy fellows (both of them):
    http://www.discovery.org/technology/contact.php

    Now that we have established that the DI has various divisions, with their own members, what does that tell us? Well, Gonzalez is definitely a fellow in the Intelligent Design division of the DI. More specifically he is a senior fellow in the Intelligent Design divsion of the DI. More specifically he is a senior fellow in the Intelligent Design divsion of the DI who has co-authered an ID book.

    In fact, he is a senior fellow in the Intelligent Design divsion of the DI who has co-authered an ID book that was discussed on this site two years ago.

    So to say that Gonzalez is merely sympathetic to ID in the full knowledge that he co-authered an ID book is a dispicable lie.

  66. Before that you asked “Are there any other types of fellows in DI?”? “Types” is a little vague. One type is senior fellow. Apparently that was not what you meant.

    Apparently that is not what Pixie meant either. It was perfectly clear to him before it was vague. Here are the comments in sequence.

    Teleo: Are there any other types of fellows in DI? (comment #58)

    Pixie: Yes there, Tel, and thanks for asking. There are fellows associated with other parts of the DI, the non-ID parts.

    It would appear at this point Pixie understood perfectly what “type” means. He understood “type” to be fellows belonging to ID and non-ID parts of DI. (comment #59)

    Teleo: Why don’t you provide the evidence that shows these classifications? (comment #60)

    Pixie: if you really were interested in the truth – was to read and I wrote and fillow the link to the DI web site to determine if it was true or not. (comment #61)

    Pixie: You were not too clear what it was you were querying. ” “Types” is a little vague.. (comment #65) Atheistic Darwinism apparently have really messed up Pixie’s mind or maybe he is just a bad liar.

  67. comment #46.

    Pixie: I think I would prefer to answer this one: Do you think it is fair for a group of theists and atheists to persecute an accomplished associate professor for no other reason other than the fact that he is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, the most prominent ID organisation and author of an ID book?

    And I shall answer “yes” . ID is not science.

    This is what you can expect from an atheist bigot and liar like Pixie.

  68. Good obfuscation, Tel. But kind of misses the point that I found the evidence to support my claim. Why would I lie? The web page I first linked to clearly indicated which part of the DI Gonzalez is a senior fellow of. I was happy to point out that he was part of the ID bit. It never crossed my mind you wanted the list of fellows from other sections.

    The DI web site has all the information; it is easy to find. You could have done it yourself. It is surprising you did not, before making your accusations. In fact, it is surprising you did not already know. The DI CSC is the ID movement, and as an active IDists I am surprised you were not aware that the CSC is just one part of the DI.

    And I still do not get what your point was. Where you hoping Gonzalez might be associated with another part of the DI? Like, may be he wrote an ID book, but was a fellow of section that looks at transport issues? That would be pretty desparate.

    But then, I guess you are desparate. You have been caught out lying, and have to do something to save face.

  69. Pix: And I shall answer “yes” . ID is not science.

    Tel: This is what you can expect from an atheist bigot and liar like Pixie.

    Mike Gene: Mainstream ID argues that ID is indeed science. I do not think ID yet qualifies as science. I view ID more as a nascent proto-science and intellectual curiosity.

  70. I have been thinking more about the evidence Tel has offered to support his accusation of Avalos as an “atheist bigot”

    Hector Avalos

    Avalos is an atheist, he is also a professor of theology at Gonzalez’ university. Avalos has written plenty of words against the Bible. But are they bigoted words? The DI would like us to think so. But Chris Heard, an Associate Professor of Religion and a Christian too please note, thinks otherwise. See here where he comments on the DI’s attempt to smear Avalos:

    What’s telling here is that, despite their outrage, the best critique the DI can muster is a half-hearted attempt at something resembling post-Holocaust sensitivity. They do not, and indeed could not argue with intellectual integrity (not usually high on the list for the DI when it goes into attack mode), that Hector is wrong– because, simply put, he’s not. The Tanakh– the focus of my professional activities and a significant factor in my own religious convictions– offers up some positively genocidal texts, and not just as narratives, but as divine law. As a Christian believer, I wish that weren’t the case, but I’m not going to whitewash matters and pretend that those texts aren’t there. I have even written about this myself (but unfortunately that article sits right in the gap between the SBL’s online Semeia archive and Rosetta’s archive of older Semeia volumes). Yes, of course Hector’s comparison is provocative, but it’s also accurate.

    Unfortunately, Tel accepts what the DI says uncritically, and on the basis of one web page declared Avalos an atheist bigot. Why would a Christian support an atheist bigot? Tel cannot say; he might have to address his own prejudices if he did.

    Opposing Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor

    But what did Avalos actually do to Gonzalez?

    1. Avalos organised a petition among the university faculty a year and a half ago, directed against ID. 120 staff signed up. Gonzalez was not mentioned, but I think it not unreasonable to suppose Gonzalez was in part a target. Acording to this report the petition was in response to Gonzalez doing an ID lecture (not an academic lecture, it must be noted).

    The petition can be seen here, and starts:

    We, the undersigned faculty members at Iowa State University, reject all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor.

    It opposes presenting ID as science. It does not oppose any religious views.

    2. Avalos got promoted at about the same time Gonzalez was denied tenure. This is what we scientists call a coincidence.

    3. Avalos arranged two anti-ID lectures (again, non-academic):
    “Intelligent Design: Is it Science or Religion?” 15th October 2004
    “Why Intelligent Design Is Not Science!” 2nd February 2006

    Note that these have the same theme as the petition; that ID is not science. The 2004 lecture is described as a critique of “Intelligent Design Creationism and a recent book by Dr. Gonzalez”.

    As far as we know, that it is. Tel has offered no evidence of anything else done by Avalos. That is not to say Avalos has done nothing else, but Tel is making the accusation “atheist bigot” based only on this evidence – as far as I can see.

    “Over the top persecution” and “leading the charge to attack Dr. Gonzales”

    Tel said in post #35: “I stand by my charge that Avalos is an atheistic bigot for his over the top persecution of Gonzales.” But I have seen precious little evidence of that persecution – let alone “over the top” persecution – on this thread, or the web pages linked in the OP. I have seen nothing at all to suggest Avalos is persecuting Gonzales for his religious beliefs. It would seem to me that Avalos is objecting to Gonzales’ support of ID; indeed, specifically Gonzalez support of ID as science.

    Way back in post #5, Tel said: “Avalos claims that he did not spearheaded an atheist plot in Iowa. A picture is worth a thousand words, look at this website Serving Atheists and Agnostics Since 1999. It sure looks like he is leading the charge to attack Dr. Gonzales.” What this “charge to attack Dr. Gonzalez” would seem to consists of (from what I see on that web site, and the links in the OP) is two lectures and a petition assertng that ID is not science, over the last three years, with nothing in the last 12 months.

    Is that really “over the top persecution of Gonzales”? Does it really look like Avalod is “leading the charge to attack Dr. Gonzales”?

    No. It may be that Avalos is spearheaded an atheist plot, but it is pretty clear that once more Tel is playing hard and fast with the truth when he claim that particular web site supports the accusation. Or indeed anything Tel has presented.

    Atheist bigot?

    Perhaps I should mention the Clergy Letter Project, an on-line petition, effectively, with over 11,000 signatories. Clergy members affirming: “We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth.” Avalos claims ID is not science. I do too. So does Mike Gene (who, like Gonzalez, has authored an ID book, so is a significant IDists, though perhaps Tel would say he was merely sympathetic to ID). So do 11,000 members of the Christian clergy. All atheist bogots?

  71. Pixie: Yes there, Tel, and thanks for asking. There are fellows associated with other parts of the DI, the non-ID parts.It would appear at this point Pixie understood perfectly what “type” means. He understood “type” to be fellows belonging to ID and non-ID parts of DI. (comment #59)

    Teleo: Why don’t you provide the evidence that shows these classifications? (comment #60)

    Pixie: if you really were interested in the truth – was to read and I wrote and fillow the link to the DI web site to determine if it was true or not. (comment #61)

    Pixie: You were not too clear what it was you were querying. ” “Types” is a little vague.. (comment #65)

    Pixie: Why would I lie?

    And yet you did. Who can figure out the mind of an atheist like you.

    Where you hoping Gonzalez might be associated with another part of the DI?

    I have no problem with Gonzalez being connected with ID in any way, shape or form. You are the one that is making a big deal of it.

    Pixie’s attempt to quote Mike Gene is more of Pixie usual Quote Mining. I certainly hope that he is not attempting to claim that Mike Gene is a despicable atheist bigot like him. comment #46.

    Pixie: I think I would prefer to answer this one: Do you think it is fair for a group of theists and atheists to persecute an accomplished associate professor for no other reason other than the fact that he is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, the most prominent ID organisation and author of an ID book?

    And I shall answer “yes” . ID is not science.

    I am almost certain that Mike Gene would not find it justifiable to persecute someone for NO OTHER REASON other than his view on ID. Pixie increases his despicability all the more by his insinuation.

  72. I have been thinking more about the evidence Tel has offered to support his accusation of Avalos as an “atheist bigot” ” Avalos has written plenty of words against the Bible. But are they bigoted words?

    Pixie the Master of Obfusaction and EquivocationWhen did I ever used his attack on the Bible as evidence for Avalos’ bigotry against Gonzalez in this post?

    But Chris Heard, an Associate Professor of Religion and a Christian too please note, thinks otherwise.

    Separately, although this is OT of the bigotry issue, what is this suppose to prove? You have some liberal who may or may not be a real Christian attacking the Bible. This is nothing new. The Jesus Seminar is full of these types of pseudo-Christians. As I’ve asked before is there a proper and historical distinctive that would define what could be called a Christian or an atheist? Or are these labels open to anyone’s choosing, because I can be an atheist too.

  73. Tel

    I have no problem with Gonzalez being connected with ID in any way, shape or form. You are the one that is making a big deal of it.

    But you said he was merely sympathetic with ID. I am making a big thing about how you tried to deliberately mislead us. I do not get how you think a discussion about fellows in other parts of the DI can in anyway justify your lying about Gonzalez’ connection with ID.

    Pixie’s attempt to quote Mike Gene is more of Pixie usual Quote Mining. I certainly hope that he is not attempting to claim that Mike Gene is a despicable atheist bigot like him. comment #46.

    I do not think either Mike Gene or me are atheist bigots.

    What I am trying to do is establish why you think Avalos is an atheist bigot. As far as I can see from the thread and pages linked on it, all he has done is organise a lecture in 2004, another and a petition in 2006. And the subject of all these is that ID is not science (something Mike Gene and 11,000 signatories of the Clergy Letter Project agree with).

    How about your present some evidence for that supposed bigotry? If you can.

    I am almost certain that Mike Gene would not find it justifiable to persecute someone for NO OTHER REASON other than his view on ID.

    Of course not. And it would be a lie to claim that I suggested Mike would do that.

    Now, have you any evidence that Avalos is persecuting Gonzalez – like anything he has done in the last 12 months?

    When did I ever used his attack on the Bible as evidence for Avalos’ bigotry against Gonzalez in this post?

    As far as I can remember, the only “evidence” you have offered for Avalos’ bigotry is two links, one in the OP, one in post 11. The one in the OP makes a big deal about Avalos’ attack on the Bible. So what exactly are you using as evidence of his atheist bigotry, Tel?

  74. But you said he was merely sympathetic with ID. I am making a big thing about how you tried to deliberately mislead us.

    I have no problem with your contrive slander and everyone can understand sympathetic is in no way misleading. Furthermore, it is clear in context that sympathetic means that Gonzalez has not injected anything that could have violated academic policy.

    On the other hand, what is important and germane to the OP is the fact that you and your comrades at Iowa have demonstrated that you are a bunch of atheist bigots.

    Pixie: I think I would prefer to answer this one: Do you think it is fair for a group of theists and atheists to persecute an accomplished associate professor for no other reason other than the fact that he is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, the most prominent ID organisation and author of an ID book?

    And I shall answer “yes” . ID is not science.

    You and your atheist bigots would persecute someone for NO OTHER REASON other than his view on ID.

    So what exactly are you using as evidence of his atheist bigotry, Tel?

    I don’t have time to play your silly little 20 question distraction game. I think the readers of this blog are smarter than this and they will recognize the OP has sufficient evidence to make this case. Until I have evidence to the contrary, I won’t waste my time on your distraction tactics. If there are any doubts, your bigoted behavior in this thread should be sufficient supporting evidence.

  75. Tel

    I have no problem with your contrive slander and everyone can understand sympathetic is in no way misleading.

    Oh, come now, Tel. Have some decency. You said merely sympathetic to ID. And that is a lie. He is not merely sympathetic to ID, he is an ID author, he is a senior fellow of the DI CSC. It is simply not true to claim he is merely sympathetic to ID.

    And remember, I put up with your contrived slander.

    On the other hand, what is important and germane to the OP is the fact that you and your comrades at Iowa have demonstrated that you are a bunch of atheist bigots.

    You have yet to show my “comrades” at Iowa beside Avalos are even atheists, let alone they are bigots!

    You and your atheist bigots would persecute someone for NO OTHER REASON other than his view on ID.

    And that persecution – that “over the top persecution” as you described it – apparently consists of organising two lectures and a petition asserting ID is not science more than a year ago. Is that really, honestly persecution, Tel?

    I don’t have time to play your silly little 20 question distraction game.

    Of course not. You are free to do whatever you want. But if you want people to believe that Avalos, the tenure commitee and me are all atheist bigots, you need to offer rather more evidence that you have so far. But yes, it is your choice.

    And you obviously do have the time to make 30 posts about the issue on this thread.

    I think the readers of this blog are smarter than this and they will recognize the OP has sufficient evidence to make this case.

    Hopefully they have the brains to notice you cannot make the case yourself. In a thread that has gone on for 75 posts, nearly half by yourself, it is strange that in all that time the only evidence you can present in seven links in the opening post – only one of which even mentions Avalos.

  76. Pixie can spew his lies all he wants but I have been faithful in quoting his own words and ONLY his own words to demonstrate his bigotry. I am content to let the readers be the judge..

    Pixie: I think I would prefer to answer this one: Do you think it is fair for a group of theists and atheists to persecute an accomplished associate professor for no other reason other than the fact that he is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, the most prominent ID organisation and author of an ID book?

    And I shall answer “yes” . ID is not science.

    You and your atheist bigots would persecute someone for NO OTHER REASON other than his view on ID. That is the fact and no amount of twisting and distraction will be able to change what Pixie, atheistic bigot, has said.

  77. ID, as promoted by the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture (DI CSC), is pseudo-science. It claims to be science, but is clearly not. Those claims at times are dishonest distortions of the work of real scientists doing real science. Any scientist associating with ID is going to find he is tainted by the DI CSC’s reputation for pseudo-science, as the DI CSC is the core of the ID movement. Gonzalez goes beyond just associating with ID, he is actually a senior fellow in the DI CSC. That means he tacitly supports the anti-science antics of that organisation (if he did not support them, one would hope he would have the moral integrity to quit). Merely by being a senior fellow of the DI CSC, as a notable scientist Gonzalez is promoting the aims of the DI CSC – and he is clearly a bright guy, so I assume he is doing so willing and intentionally.

    And in my opinion the profession standing of any scientist who promotes the activities of an anti-science organisation should be questioned.

    Tenure is not a right. It is not automatic unless the rules are broken. It is at the discretion of the university.. That means that granting tenure to Gonzalez is giving tacit support to him, and therefore to the organisation to which he is strongly associated. If the ISU gave Gonzalez tenure, with his strong connection to the DI CSC, they would in turn be giving tacit support to the DI CSC. Think about how big a deal the DI CSC would have made about it, if Gonzalez had been given tenure. To many people it would seem that the ISU was endorsing ID as science. That alone is reason enough not to.

    Is denying someone tenure persecution? I do not think so, but perhaps the word means something different to Tel.

    Does considering ID to be pseudo-science make me a bigot? I do not think so, but again, maybe Tel understands the word differently.

    It kind of goes against the grain of the thread, but perhaps we could look at what some people really said. Gonzalez appealed the decision, here is Iowa State University President Gregory Geoffroy statement about the results of the appeal:
    http://www.iastate.edu/~nscentral/news/2007/jun/statement.shtml

    Gonzalez responds here:
    http://www.midiowanews.com/site/tab1.cfm?newsid=18417565&dept_id=554432&brd=2700&pag=461

    At the same time several of the same ISU faculty spread misinformation about me and the nature of my Intelligent Design research in the local press.

    Ultimately, the decision to deny or grant tenure is a subjective one, based not only on published objective academic criteria, but also on such ill-defined criteria as the perceived standing among peers and whether the mission of the university is advanced.

    It is interesting that Gonzalez indicates that he is not merely sympathetic to ID, but that he is engaged in ID research, further highlighting your lie for what it was.

    Also see that he accepts (perhaps reluctantly) that “perceived standing among peers and whether the mission of the university is advanced” are factors in the tenure process. His strong association with the DI CSC will have had a damaging effect on his standing with his peers.

    ID could be part of a scientific investigation. I am not so anti-ID that I would reject all ID just because it is ID. But the reality is that ID (and I am talking about ID as represented by the DI CSC) is not science, and is not part of a scientific investigation. It is pseudo-science; something that merely pretends to be science.

    And any university that want to maintain its scientific credability should distance itself any and all pseudo-sciences. As ISU has done:
    http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070604/27778_University_President_Denies_Pro-'Design'_Professor's_Appeal_for_Tenure.htm

    ISU is one of the many schools that have already drafted a policy refuting ID as science. According to professors at the school, ISU did not want to be aligned with the contested idea, but Gonzalez had given the university a reputation of being an “ID school.”

    If Gonzalez wishes to persue ID as research, then that is fine with me, as long as he does it as a science (and for all I know, he does), and as long as he distances himself from the anti-science DI CSC.

    Other things I happened to come across.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/biosketch_of_dr_guillermo_gonz.html

    The Privileged Planet was developed into a documentary and shown on PBS stations around the country.

    So Gonzalez co-authored an ID book that was made into a documerntary and shown on PBS and Tel wants us to believe Gonzalez was merely sympathetic to ID.

    http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2007/05/15/news/breaking_news/doc464974df40e01506090454.txt

    DES MOINES (AP) — Iowa State University has denied tenure to an assistant professor who has been outspoken in his views on intelligent design, prompting one group to claim he’s being punished because of his views.

    Not merely sympathetic to ID, but actually “outspoken in his views on intelligent design”.

    http://www.iowastatedaily.com/media/paper818/news/2005/12/12/News/Intelligent.Design.Opponents.Willing.To.Debate-1127186.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.iowastatedaily.com

    One person who will not be attending the discussion forums is Guillermo Gonzalez, author of “The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery,” assistant professor of physics and astronomy and main proponent of introducing Intelligent Design.
    Gonzales argues the theory is not based on religion.
    I don’t intend to participate in an[y] kind of forum presented by the opposing side,” Gonzalez said.

  78. What is it with Tel and the truth? He just cannot help distorting and misrepresenting.

    You and your atheist bigots would persecute someone for NO OTHER REASON other than his view on ID.

    Now if you actually read what I said, I said because he is a scientist and “a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, the most prominent ID organisation and author of an ID book”. So the THREE OTHER REASONS were: (1) being a scientist; (2) high ranking membership of the DI (and I guess I should have specified the CSC); and (3) author of an ID book.

    Please, stop with the lies, Tel. It does not help your position at all.

  79. ID, as promoted by the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture (DI CSC), is pseudo-science.

    Mostly according to atheist bigots like Pixie, who would persecute someone for NO OTHER REASON other than their support of ID.

    It claims to be science, but is clearly not.

    This is true of Darwinian evolution.

    That means that granting tenure to Gonzalez is giving tacit support to him, and therefore to the organisation to which he is strongly associated.

    This of course would not apply to other bigots like Pixie because of his Double Standards. It seems fine to Pixie for an organization to give tacit support to a group of atheist bigots but not to someone who made no academic connection to ID.

    any scientist who promotes the activities of an anti-science organisation should be questioned.

    Darwinists have been anti-science, ignored and refuse to produce any empirical evidence for over a century. Why don’t we start with them?

    Is denying someone tenure persecution?

    Yes, when the reason for doing so is unjustifiable. If you deny tenure to someone for no other reason than being a Brit or an African American and promote a German because you favor Germans that is simple bigoted persecution.

    It is interesting that Gonzalez indicates that he is not merely sympathetic to ID, but that he is engaged in ID research, further highlighting your lie for what it was.

    Pixie is a slanderous liar. Is ID research contradictory to being sympathetic to ID. But this is his tactic to distract the reader from the fact that Pixie is a bigot that persecutes someone for NO OTHER REASON other than their support of ID.

    Now if you actually read what I said, I said because he is a scientist and “a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, the most prominent ID organisation and author of an ID book” . So the THREE OTHER REASONS were:

    We all read what Pixie actually said, Pixie will “persecute someone for NO OTHER REASON other than his support for ID. The 3 spins he is giving now still does not change the fact that he would deny someone tenure for no other reason other than his support of ID outside of his academic accomplishments.

    Please, stop with the lies, Tel. It does not help your position at all.

    The only lies here is Pixie claiming that I somehow suggests that Gonzalez is not a strong supporter of ID. It is true I don’t know Gonzalez personally and I suspect neither does Pixie, so his implication that being a “senior fellow” is more important or a stronger supporter of ID or DI is a lie. As Pixie has pointed out Paul Nelson, Cornelius Hunter, John Angus Campbell, Scott Minnich, Richard Weikart and Nancy Pearcey are all fellows not “senior fellows” . Many of them have written more pro-ID books than Gonzalez. They post regularly on DI’s blogs and attend ID conferences. Is Pixie a mind reader? How does he know that Gonzalez is a stronger and more important supporter of ID than these other fellows? Pixie is the real liar and a despicable bigot here.

    As a matter of fact Paul Nelson, Dean Kenyon, Walter Bradley and John Angus Campbell were a part of the Pajaro group, which some have credited for spearheading the current ID science. All these gentlemen are listed as fellows in CSC. Pixie would have you believe that these men are less important than Gonzalez. Pixie is a despicable liar and a Master of Obfusaction and Equivocation.

  80. Pix: ID, as promoted by the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture (DI CSC), is pseudo-science.

    Tel: Mostly according to atheist bigots like Pixie, who would persecute someone for NO OTHER REASON other than their support of ID.

    Mainstream ID is not science according to:
    * 120 faculty members of the ISU (you will want to label them atheist bigots)
    * Nearly all biologists (you will want to label them atheist bigots too)
    * Mike Gene (you will want to accuse me of misrepresenting Mike, even though I quoted him earlier)
    * Over 11,000 members of the clergy who have signed a petition saying “We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth.” (you will probably want to say they are not real Christians)

    This of course would not apply to other bigots like Pixie because of his Double Standards. It seems fine to Pixie for an organization to give tacit support to a group of atheist bigots but not to someone who made no academic connection to ID.

    What organisation are you talking about?

    Yes, when the reason for doing so is unjustifiable. If you deny tenure to someone for no other reason than being a Brit or an African American and promote a German because you favor Germans that is simple bigoted persecution.

    But being British or German or African American has no bearing on someone’s scientific acumen. Giving clear and strong support to an anti-science organisation like the DI CSC certainly does.

    Pixie is a slanderous liar. Is ID research contradictory to being sympathetic to ID.

    It is contradictory to being merely sympathetic to ID. Please do not pretend you do not know what the word “merely” means.

    But this is his tactic to distract the reader from the fact that Pixie is a bigot that persecutes someone for NO OTHER REASON other than their support of ID.

    This is a lie that you keep repeating. I stated in my last post that there were other reasons, and still you dishonestly misrepresent my postion. Why do you feel the need to do that?

    We all read what Pixie actually said, Pixie will “persecute someone for NO OTHER REASON other than his support for ID. The 3 spins he is giving now still does not change the fact that he would deny someone tenure for no other reason other than his support of ID outside of his academic accomplishments.

    Now you dishonestly quote me! The phrase “persecute someone for…” first appears in post #71, as anyone can confirm by searching this web page. Post #71 was made by you. You are quoting yourself, and pretending I said it!

    And you have the gall to accuse me of dishonesty.

    The only lies here is Pixie claiming that I somehow suggests that Gonzalez is not a strong supporter of ID.

    More lies! And obvious ones at that. Anyone can check back at post #33 and read what you really said. Here is the second paragraph:

    Let the readers of this blog please take notice of what Pixie just called this college and some of its Christian students, “bigots” . Pixie has once again shown what a humongous hypocrite he is. Throughout this thread Pixie never referred to Avalos (an atheist like Pixie) as a bigot even though Avalos unjustly persecuted Gonzales — not for teaching ID, but merely for being sympathetic to ID. And yet, the first chance he gets, Pixie leaps at the chance to label a college and some Christian students as bigots.

    How can you hope to get away with it, Tel? You plainly said Gonzalez was merely sympathetic to ID. That is not true..

    It is true I don’t know Gonzalez personally and I suspect neither does Pixie, so his implication that being a “senior fellow” is more important or a stronger supporter of ID or DI is a lie. As Pixie has pointed out Paul Nelson, Cornelius Hunter, John Angus Campbell, Scott Minnich, Richard Weikart and Nancy Pearcey are all fellows not “senior fellows” . Many of them have written more pro-ID books than Gonzalez. They post regularly on DI’s blogs and attend ID conferences. Is Pixie a mind reader? How does he know that Gonzalez is a stronger and more important supporter of ID than these other fellows? Pixie is the real liar and a despicable bigot here.

    I do not know exactly how important Gonzalez is, but remember that Gonzalez’ book was made into a documentary; how many IDists can claim that. I have said he is a significant ID proponent. Do you want to claim otherwise? I said he had strong connections to the DI CSC. Do you really want to prend he does not? I have said he is one of the top twenty most significant ID proponent, and presented evidence to support that. On that I may be wrong. Perhaps you could list twenty more important IDists and prove that I was wrong to put him in the top twenty. It will still not be true that he is merely sympathetic to ID.

  81. Darwinists have been anti-science, ignored and refuse to produce any empirical evidence for over a century. Why don’t we start with them?

    I think this particular comment needs a more considered response, so I am doing so in a new post.

    Who exactly are “Darwinists”? Adherents to Darwin’s theories? Biology has come a long way since Darwin’s time, and modern evolutionary theory (MET) is significantly different to Darwin’s theories. I doubt Tel cares one jot about that distinction. But I do wonder if he means specifically biologists studying and publishing work on evolution, or more generally all scientist who accept MET, or pethaps anyone who accpts MET. This is an important different. Is Tel accusing only a few hundred thousand evolutionary biologists of fraud, or is it millions of people right across the scientific community?

    Either way, if what he says is true (and I kind of suspect it is not), then he is implying quite a conspiracy.* I wonder how it works…

    Imagine you are a keen biology student at school, taught all about evolution. It is exciting, it is interesting, so you go to college to do biology, get a degree and a Ph.D., and then do a post-doc, and finally become a lecturer. Somewhere along that career path, you have to have joined the conspiracy. Another lecturer or someone must have taken you aside to a dark corner (to put it melodramatically), and whispered about how the whole evolution thing is made up – there is no real evidence for it at all. Now, please join our conspiracy, and you too can pretend evolutuion is real science for the next generation of gullable idiots. Or maybe they have a lecture where the conspiracy is revealed to all the new biologists at college that year, and students are only allowed out once they have signed away their souls.

    Does that sound reasonable?

    Out of all those hundred of thousands of biologist (if we assume it is only the biologists), they all say, sure, no problem. Even the Christian biologists have no problem pretending MET is good science. I can see that many of them might go along with it for the sake of their careers, but all of them? Is that not just a tiny bit unlikely?

    Is it not likely that some will make a stand? Surely there are some biologists who quit to become something else. Why have none of them blow the whistle on his huge conspiracy? Why do none of the tell their stories to the newspapers when they retire? How about if they get sacked?

    What about Denton, Behe and Gene? They are all biologists who have gone some considerable distance through the academic system. Behe is a professor of biochemistry (a tenured professor, note), but a stauch ID proponent. Why has he not spoken out against this conspiracy? Mike Gene has a blog where he posts anonymously; surely it would be safe for him to let the cat out of the bag.

    No one every has. Is it possible that there is no conspiracy? Not for Tel. He might have to accept that hundreds of thousands of biologists are right, that he is indeed related to monkeys.

    So is there evidence for evolution?
    http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
    http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolution/index.html

    I suggest, Tel, starting a new thread if you want to delve into exactly what the evidence is.

    * I know the way Tel’s mind works, so let me be quite clear: Tel did not say there is a conspiracy, and I am not claiming he did. I am claiming that a conspiracy is a necessary implication of what he did say; that for evolution to be promoted as science when it is not would require deceit by hundreds of thousands of people. Such a feat would e a conspiracy.

  82. Mainstream ID is not science according to:

    * 120 faculty members of the ISU (you will want to label them atheist bigots)

    And anyone who doesn’t agree with this is removed from the faculty by these atheist bigots, so these same bigots can boast how the overwhelming majority agrees with them. This is what I would now call the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad argument “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you that we have it.”   Here in America we eliminate all the Darwinism deniers.  In America/ISU faculty, we don’t have Darwinism deniers. In America/ISU faculty we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you that we have it.

    Now you dishonestly quote me! The phrase “persecute someone for”” first appears in post #71, as anyone can confirm by searching this web page. Post #71 was made by you. You are quoting yourself, and pretending I said it!

    This is a lie. Between the two of us, the word persecute was first used by Pixie through a quote he referenced in comment #16 ” the DI wants to claim that Gonzalez has been persecuted for his ideology” .

    Regardless, who used the word persecute first, the more important point is this. Pixie is a big fat LIAR when he said that I misquoted him. Let me quote him again from comment #46.

    I think I would prefer to answer this one: Do you think it is fair for a group of theists and atheists to persecute an accomplished associate professor for no other reason other than the fact that he is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute , the most prominent ID organisation and author of an ID book?

    And I shall answer “yes” .

    How many times did Pixie used the word I in that statement? Sorry Pixie, you’ve proved yourself to be a liar once again.

    More lies! And obvious ones at that. Anyone can check back at post #33 and read what you really said. Here is the second paragraph:

    Yes, please check. Not only comment #33 but in this entire thread. I have NEVER said that Gonzalez is not a strong support of ID. On the other hand, Pixie is lying when he said, ” I do not know exactly how important Gonzalez is “. Let me remind the readers of what Pixie said in comment #57.

    Together with Meyer, West and twelve senior fellows, these are the fifteen most important IDists in the DI CSC. Of that there can be no doubt.

    When you are used to lying like Pixie, it must be hard to keep your lies consistent.

    The fact is, Pixie wants to demonize Gonzalez for his support of ID and DI, even though that has NOTHING to do with his work as a professor at Iowa State, therefore his need to make Gonzalez more important than the “fellows” in CSC. However, Paul Nelson, Cornelius Hunter, John Angus Campbell, Scott Minnich, Richard Weikart and Nancy Pearcey are all fellows not “senior fellows” . Many of them have written more pro-ID books than Gonzalez. They post regularly on DI’s blogs and attend ID conferences. Is Pixie a mind reader? How does he know that Gonzalez is a stronger and more important supporter of ID than these other fellows? Pixie is the real liar and a despicable bigot here.

    As a matter of fact Paul Nelson, Dean Kenyon, Walter Bradley and John Angus Campbell were a part of the Pajaro group, which some have credited for spearheading the current ID science. All these gentlemen are listed as fellows in CSC. Pixie would have you believe that these men are less important than Gonzalez. Pixie is a despicable liar and a Master of Obfusaction and Equivocation.

  83. And anyone who doesn’t agree with this is removed from the faculty by these atheist bigots, so these same bigots can boast how the overwhelming majority agrees with them. This is what I would now call the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad argument “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you that we have it.” Here in America we eliminate all the Darwinism deniers.

    Is there any actual evidence that that has happened at ISU or are you making it up, Tel?

    I have heard nothing about anyone being removed from the faculty for their belief, which would be very strange if it were true. So I feel pretty sure this is another whopper.

    Pix: Now you dishonestly quote me! The phrase “persecute someone for”” first appears in post #71, as anyone can confirm by searching this web page. Post #71 was made by you. You are quoting yourself, and pretending I said it!

    Tel: This is a lie. Between the two of us, the word persecute was first used by Pixie through a quote he referenced in comment #16 ” the DI wants to claim that Gonzalez has been persecuted for his ideology” .

    What do you mean it is a lie? Anyone can do Ctrl-F and search this web page for “persecute someone for”. They will find it first appears in post #71.

    Ah, wait, I see what you have done. You have picked one word out of that phrase, and then accuse me of lying because that word appears earlier than I said the whole phrase appears.

    Not exactly honest, is it?

    Regardless, who used the word persecute first, the more important point is this. Pixie is a big fat LIAR when he said that I misquoted him. Let me quote him again from comment #46.

    How many times did Pixie used the word I in that statement? Sorry Pixie, you’ve proved yourself to be a liar once again.

    Once more, Tel twists my words. I never denied saying what I did in post #46. Tel pretends I did to cover up misquoting me elsewhere. Sad he does not have the honesyt to admit his mistake. Hmm, perhaps it was deliberate.

    How does he know whether I am big or fat or not? And how is that in anyway relevant to this discussion? Does he believe big and fat people are less honest than thin people? Or perhaps he thinks big and fat people are bigots?

    Yes, please check. Not only comment #33 but in this entire thread. I have NEVER said that Gonzalez is not a strong support of ID.

    Tel, how can you hope to get away with these lies? You say, in that posty #33: “Avalos unjustly persecuted Gonzales — not for teaching ID, but merely for being sympathetic to ID

    If he is merely sympathetic to ID, then he is not a strong supporter of ID. It was a lie. At one time you might have been able to claim you made a mistake, but you cling to this untruth with such determination.

    On the other hand, Pixie is lying when he said, ” I do not know exactly how important Gonzalez is “. Let me remind the readers of what Pixie said in comment #57.
    Together with Meyer, West and twelve senior fellows, these are the fifteen most important IDists in the DI CSC. Of that there can be no doubt.

    Tel, what you quoted of me is enough to show what I meant. Gonzalez is one of the top 15 in the DI CSC. I say that because he is a senior fellow, so in the DI CSC he is ranked above Paul Nelson. I do not know what their criteria are for ranking (maybe he just gives them wedges of cash), but it is a fact – verifiable by anyone checking the DI web site – that Gonzalez is in the elite 15 at the DI CSC.

    Outside the DI CSC, it is harder to assess Gonzalez significance, because there is not a universally recognised ranking system, nor what we should use for criteria.

    Unfortunately, you are so desparate to accuse me of dishonesty (perhaps to hide you own lies) that you failed to actually read what I said, and end up looking like an idiot.

    The fact is, Pixie wants to demonize Gonzalez for his support of ID and DI ….

    No, the fact is that Tel wanted to pretend that Gonzalez had limited connects to ID, to make the so-called persuction seem even less justified.

    The fact is, Pixie wants to demonize Gonzalez for his support of ID and DI, even though that has NOTHING to do with his work as a professor at Iowa State, therefore his need to make Gonzalez more important than the “fellows” in CSC.

    But the activities of a tenured professor does affect a university, and when that science professor gives clear and strong support to an anti-science organisation like the DI CSC, that is a matter for the university to consider.

    However, Paul Nelson, Cornelius Hunter, John Angus Campbell, Scott Minnich, Richard Weikart and Nancy Pearcey are all fellows not “senior fellows” . Many of them have written more pro-ID books than Gonzalez. They post regularly on DI’s blogs and attend ID conferences.

    I do not know, and I have said as much. I do know the DI CSC rank him enough to make him a senior fellow, which puts him in their top fifteen. That is a fact, and I would be surprised if you want to dispute that. I suspect Gonzalez is in the top twenty IDists, but if you find a list of twenty more important ones, I will admit my mistake. How many of those you list have had books made into documentaries, by the way?

    As a matter of fact Paul Nelson, Dean Kenyon, Walter Bradley and John Angus Campbell were a part of the Pajaro group, which some have credited for spearheading the current ID science. All these gentlemen are listed as fellows in CSC. Pixie would have you believe that these men are less important than Gonzalez.

    .
    I would have you believe the DI CSC ranks them lower than Gonzalez. Anyone doubting that can go to the DI web site and see who is a senior fellow and who is not.

  84. Pixie the bigoted atheist said: I think I would prefer to answer this one: Do you think it is fair for a group of theists and atheists to persecute an accomplished associate professor for no other reason other than the fact that he is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, the most prominent ID organisation and author of an ID book?

    And I shall answer ” yes” .

    I started out in this thread to bring attention to the persecution IDists must endure at the hands of atheist bigots like those in Iowa State; however I never thought that I would get a direct confirmation of their bigotry by Pixie, our resident atheist. The motive behind their persecution is clear. The modern atheists’ worldview is entirely based on the Darwinian myth. When IDists challenges that myth, the atheists’ religious belief is threaten and they respond predictably by lashing out at the IDists. Nevertheless, this does not absolve the despicable bigoted behaviors of atheists by the likes of Pixie.

    What these despicable atheists like Pixie is doing is to protect their argumentum ad verecundiam through Darwinian Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tactics. Atheist bigots like Pixie and his cohorts realizes that the majority of Americans (I suspect all nations) do not accept the Darwinian fairy tale because it is just factually incredulous. People will respect science when there is sufficient empirical basis to support the claim, but they will not support a fairy tale disguised as science. It is a myth concocted by atheists for atheists to support their delusion of being a fulfilled Atheist. The argumentum ad verecundiam through Darwinian Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tactics is the only tool they have left for forced indoctrination.

    Pixie and his atheist cohorts are part of a group of Darwinian Priors. Their blind allegiance to Atheism prevents them from seeing any empirical evidence that threatens their faith. I would feel sorrier for them if it wasn’t for their unethical and insidious behaviors to destroy the lives and careers of others.

  85. I started out in this thread to bring attention to the persecution IDists must endure at the hands of atheist bigots like those in Iowa State; however I never thought that I would get a direct confirmation of their bigotry by Pixie, our resident atheist. The motive behind their persecution is clear. The modern atheists’ worldview is entirely based on the Darwinian myth. When IDists challenges that myth, the atheists’ religious belief is threaten and they respond predictably by lashing out at the IDists. Nevertheless, this does not absolve the despicable bigoted behaviors of atheists by the likes of Pixie.

    Suppose a Christian preacher starts to talk about Hinduism, and how actually, it makes a lot of sense. He joins the most prominent Hindu temple in the US, and for whatever reason, he is give a notable rank within that temple. While he continues to preach in his church, he also writes a book, and the book is promoting Hinduism. It is a very successful book, and gets made into documentary. Then he asks his church – the Christian church that is paying his wages – to give a commitment to him, a promise that they will continue to employ him as a preacher, regardless of what message he actually preaches.

    Should the church make that commitment (and let us suppose for the sake of argument that they frequently do make such a commitment to their top preachers)?

    What these despicable atheists like Pixie is doing is to protect their argumentum ad verecundiam through Darwinian Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tactics.

    Here we go with the lies. As far as I know no one has been sacked from ISU for daring to speak of ID, for merely being sympathetic to ID, or even – as in Gonzalez case – being one of the most prominent IDists in the world. Tel, this is just not true, and I am sure you know that.

    Atheist bigots like Pixie and his cohorts realizes that the majority of Americans (I suspect all nations) do not accept the Darwinian fairy tale because it is just factually incredulous.

    Tel might sadly be right about the majority of Americans rejecting modern evolutionary theory. Is that due to personal incredulity? I would guess that religious beliefs are also an important factor (which Tel wold prefer to keep quiet, I suspect). I think that is appalling; that so many people are so ignorant. Thankfully, I think it is not nearly so bad in Europe.

    People will respect science when there is sufficient empirical basis to support the claim, but they will not support a fairy tale disguised as science. It is a myth concocted by atheists for atheists to support their delusion of being a fulfilled Atheist. The argumentum ad verecundiam through Darwinian Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tactics is the only tool they have left for forced indoctrination.

    That laughable conspiracy again. Hundreds of thousands of biologists, perhaps millions of scientists, right across the world – many of them Christian, and numerous other faiths.

    Pixie and his atheist cohorts are part of a group of Darwinian Priors.

    You are starting to sound delusional, Tel. The Priors are a fictional group in a TV series. It is all made up. Like most of your claims on this thread, now I come to think about it.

  86. You are starting to sound delusional, Tel. The Priors are a fictional group in a TV series.

    Like the story that Pixie made up? It is stupidly incompatible to what I said. I won’t even waste my time to explain it a Darwinian jaundice mind like Pixie’s, but a keen non-Darwinian uncorrupted mind will no doubt recognize the categorical mistake.

    For the unbiased reader who has actually study the OP links, he will no doubt see the unjustifiable persecution of Gonzalez for no other reason except for his sympathetic view on ID. Pixie has attempted to demonize him in this thread but he has NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE to justify his bigoted atheistic slant.

    Pixie the bigoted atheist said: I think I would prefer to answer this one: Do you think it is fair for a group of theists and atheists to persecute an accomplished associate professor for no other reason other than the fact that he is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, the most prominent ID organisation and author of an ID book?

    And I shall answer ” yes” .

  87. Like the story that Pixie made up?

    No, not like that. I clearly presented my story as being hypothetical. I am seriously worried you actually believe in these “Darwinian Priors” and this ridiculous conspiracy involving tens of thousands of Christian biologists across the globe promoting a fake Darwinism for atheism.

    It is stupidly incompatible to what I said. I won’t even waste my time to explain it a Darwinian jaundice mind like Pixie’s, but a keen non-Darwinian uncorrupted mind will no doubt recognize the categorical mistake.

    That is fine and it is no surprise at all that you will not explain it. I doubt you could. Hopefully anyone with an open mind will see the analogy.

    For the unbiased reader who has actually study the OP links, he will no doubt see the unjustifiable persecution of Gonzalez for no other reason except for his sympathetic view on ID.

    Still going with that lie? I have clearly documented that Gonzalez is much more intimately connected with ID than just having a “sympathetic view”. You know full well that he is the co-auther of an ID book, so it is a dirty lie to pretend there is “no other reason” than his “sympathetic view on ID“. You know full well that he is a senior fellow of the DI CSC, so it is a filthy lie to pretend there is “no other reason” than his “sympathetic view on ID“.

    Pixie has attempted to demonize him in this thread but he has NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE to justify his bigoted atheistic slant.

    What I have attempted to do is present a realistic picture of Gonzalez. I claim he is a prominient IDist, and proided FACTUAL EVIDENCE to support that (the list of fellows in the DI CSC; evidence he co-authered an ID book). Meanwhile you are still pretending Gonzalez has only a tenuous connection to ID (he is “merely” sympathetic to ID; “no other reason except for his sympathetic view on ID”).

    And, yes, I still believe that a science professor who is one of the fifteen most important members of a major anti-science organisation should be denied tenure.

  88. Tel, I have started a thread at ARN about your amusing “Darwinian priors” conspiracy.

  89. I am seriously worried you actually believe in these “Darwinian Priors” and this ridiculous conspiracy involving tens of thousands of Christian biologists across the globe promoting a fake Darwinism for atheism.

    Cuckoo”Cuckoo

    That is fine and it is no surprise at all that you will not explain it. I doubt you could.

    It is stupidly incompatible to what I said. I won’t even waste my time to explain it a Darwinian jaundice mind like Pixie’s, but a keen non-Darwinian corrupted mind will no doubt recognize the categorical mistake. I doubt Pixie even understand what that means. Oh well.

    I have clearly documented that Gonzalez is much more intimately connected with ID than just having a “sympathetic view” .

    Typical Darwinian and atheist gobbledegook. Pixie clearly documented NOTHING. He has NO EVIDENCE, ZERO, ZILCH documentation on DI’s policy for determining fellowships. Many of fellows have written more ID books than Gonzalez and much more active in the public arena. Pixie, the bigot, just doesn’t want to be confused by the facts.

    What I have attempted to do is present a realistic picture of Gonzalez.

    Duh! LIAR ALERT!

    And, yes, I still believe that a science professor who is one of the fifteen most important members of a major anti-science organisation should be denied tenure.

    I rest my case. PIXIE IS AN ATHEIST BIGOT!

    Pixie the bigoted atheist said: I think I would prefer to answer this one: Do you think it is fair for a group of theists and atheists to persecute an accomplished associate professor for no other reason other than the fact that he is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, the most prominent ID organisation and author of an ID book?

    And I shall answer ” yes” .

  90. In the other current thread, Tel said in post #10:

    talkorigins has been shown to be bias against ID and has proven to misrepresent ID. As a Darwinist, you probably don’t have a problem with that, but as an IDist I do.

    I find this laughable, when Tel bases his claims on this thread on web pages written by “ID The Future” and the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture. Is Tel aware that these are pro-ID organisations, with a bias against modern evolutionary theory? And certainly the DI CSC has a long history of misrepresenting scientists.

    I guess as an IDist, he probably does have a problem with that, but as an evolutionist, I do!

    It is stupidly incompatible to what I said. I won’t even waste my time to explain it a Darwinian jaundice mind like Pixie’s, but a keen non-Darwinian corrupted mind will no doubt recognize the categorical mistake. I doubt Pixie even understand what that means. Oh well.

    Okay, good. Let readers decide for themselves whether the analogy is apt or not. I have presented my side; if you do not want to present your side, well that suits me fine.

    Pix: I have clearly documented that Gonzalez is much more intimately connected with ID than just having a “sympathetic view” .

    Tel: Typical Darwinian and atheist gobbledegook. Pixie clearly documented NOTHING. He has NO EVIDENCE, ZERO, ZILCH documentation on DI’s policy for determining fellowships. Many of fellows have written more ID books than Gonzalez and much more active in the public arena. Pixie, the bigot, just doesn’t want to be confused by the facts.

    Specifically:
    I linked to and quoted from a DI CSC web page listing fellows that proves Gonzalez is a senior fellow.
    * Do you deny Gonzalez is a senior fellow of the DI CSC?
    * Do you deny that I have proved Gonzalez is a senior fellow of the DI CSC?

    I have linked to two page – one a thread on this site that you have posted on – that prove Gonzalez is co-author of a pro-ID book.
    * Do you deny Gonzalez is co-author of a pro-ID book?
    * Do you deny that I have proved Gonzalez is co-author of a pro-ID book?

    If you do not want to deny any of those four points above, then I have documented that Gonzalez is much more intimately connected with ID than just having a “sympathetic view” . Unless you want to go on record denying one or more of the four points above, then it is a clear and blatent lie when you said “Pixie clearly documented NOTHING.

    It is true that I have offered no documentation specifically on the “DI’s policy for determining fellowships”. But it is dishonest of you to pretend that I ever claim to have done so. I have not. I think there is a good case for Gonzalez being in the top twenty most important IDists, but I may well be wrong. Feel free to find 20 more important IDists (I have no idea why you have not done so already; is a list of twenty names really so hard to compile). Whether Gonzalez is top twenty or not, it is clear – and documented – that he is a prominent IDist. It is clear – and documented – that you told a despicable lie when you pretended he was merely sympathetic to ID.

  91. I find this laughable, when Tel bases his claims on this thread on web pages written by “ID The Future” and the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture. Is Tel aware that these are pro-ID organisations, with a bias against modern evolutionary theory?

    I think it must have been a maniacal laughter. Only a jaundice Darwinian would try to use this sort of irrational argument. Think about it for a minute, Pixie is implying that by my use of a pro-ID group to criticize talkorigins is invalid. The problem with this line of argument is that Pixie is a bigoted atheist who is radically against ID groups. Therefore if he thinks that a pro-ID group’s criticism of a biased evolution group is invalid, that would make his objection to pro-ID groups invalid also, because of his bias against ID. Is Pixie aware that he is anti-ID, with a bias against intelligent design theory?

    And certainly the DI CSC has a long history of misrepresenting scientists.

    Longer than Pixie’s history of misrepresenting IDists?

    But more importantly because Pixie’s atheistic corrupted mind is incapable of objective reason, because if he was capable of objective reasoning, he would have noticed that I also cited a neutral source. I recognized that both sides are capable of having biases therefore I ask for a more objective source from Zachriel. Second, talkorigins is most certainly not the original source of such information. If Pixie is an objective critic, he should have agreed with me and asked for the original source of such documentation. The school board and FindLaw would be legitimate sources for such original document but I can’t find it. The question then becomes why is it that when Darwinists quotes someone like DeHart have to point to sites like talkorigins and not the original source documents?

    Do you deny Gonzalez is a senior fellow of the DI CSC?

    Does everyone see what sort of devious atheist like Pixie is? He completely avoided the entire fallacy of his premise with his repetitive gobbledegook. FACT: Pixie clearly documented NOTHING. He has NO EVIDENCE, ZERO, ZILCH documentation on DI’s policy for determining fellowships. Pixie makes a big deal about Gonzalez’s co-authored an ID book. Many of fellows have written more ID books than Gonzalez and much more active in the public arena. Pixie, the bigot, just doesn’t want to be confused by the facts.

    Feel free to find 20 more important IDists (I have no idea why you have not done so already

    This is so blatantly ignorant. I have suggested that in my opinion several of the fellows in CSC that are more important and more prominent than Gonzalez, but that is my opinion. I have no idea as to how DI values its’ members. But I am sure Pixie can make something up to enlighten the rest of us. After all isn’t that what atheists and Darwinians like Pixie do best?

  92. Tel: talkorigins has been shown to be bias against ID and has proven to misrepresent ID. As a Darwinist, you probably don’t have a problem with that, but as an IDist I do.

    Pix: I find this laughable, when Tel bases his claims on this thread on web pages written by “ID The Future” and the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture. Is Tel aware that these are pro-ID organisations, with a bias against modern evolutionary theory?

    Tel: I think it must have been a maniacal laughter. Only a jaundice Darwinian would try to use this sort of irrational argument. Think about it for a minute, Pixie is implying that by my use of a pro-ID group to criticize talkorigins is invalid. The problem with this line of argument is that Pixie is a bigoted atheist who is radically against ID groups. Therefore if he thinks that a pro-ID group’s criticism of a biased evolution group is invalid, that would make his objection to pro-ID groups invalid also, because of his bias against ID. Is Pixie aware that he is anti-ID, with a bias against intelligent design theory?

    Actually my argument is that on this thread you have selected a handful of links to unashamedly pro-ID web pages to support your argument, without apparently considering that what they say could be, well, shall we say, slanted a certain way. You assume it is honest and accurate, just because it is pro-ID. But when someone presents something from TalkOrigin, you reject it. You assume it is dishonest and inaccurate, just because it is anti-ID.

    What I am pointing out to the good folk reading this thread is nothing about those web sites, but is about your behaviour in assessing them.

    But more importantly because Pixie’s atheistic corrupted mind is incapable of objective reason, because if he was capable of objective reasoning, he would have noticed that I also cited a neutral source.

    You cited six web pages at “Evolution news”, which is run by the DI CSC, and one web page at “ID The Future”. Which of these do you think is neutral? I could do with another good laugh!

    I recognized that both sides are capable of having biases therefore I ask for a more objective source from Zachriel.

    Great. Like I provided a neutral site (by a Christian, Chris Heard) about Avalos. Oh, wait. My site agreed with me. Ergo, it must have been written by an atheist bigot, pretending to be a Christian professor of theology.

    Second, talkorigins is most certainly not the original source of such information. If Pixie is an objective critic, he should have agreed with me and asked for the original source of such documentation. The school board and FindLaw would be legitimate sources for such original document but I can’t find it. The question then becomes why is it that when Darwinists quotes someone like DeHart have to point to sites like talkorigins and not the original source documents?

    Sure. So on that thread I found a neutral source, and quoted from it. I guess we are both happy with that now. Oh, wait. You rejected that site because it disagreed with your preconceptions. I remember.

    Pix:
    * Do you deny Gonzalez is a senior fellow of the DI CSC?
    * Do you deny that I have proved Gonzalez is a senior fellow of the DI CSC?
    * Do you deny Gonzalez is co-author of a pro-ID book?
    * Do you deny that I have proved Gonzalez is co-author of a pro-ID book?

    I notice Tel does not deny any of the above. He cannot, he knows that to deny them would only confirm that he is a liar.

    Gonzalez is a senior fellow of the DI CSC and I have given adequate documentation of that.

    Gonzalez is co-author of a pro-ID book and I have given adequate documentation of that.

    FACT: Pixie clearly documented NOTHING.

    Well, actually I have. I have documented that Gonzalez is a senior fellow of the DI CSC. I have documented that Gonzalez is co-author of a pro-ID book.

    He has NO EVIDENCE, ZERO, ZILCH documentation on DI’s policy for determining fellowships.

    Nor have I claimed to. I presume they do have a system, and within that system, they see fit to rank Gonzalez in the top fifteen. I claim no more than that.

    But why let the facts get in the way, hey, Tel? Just pretend about what I am arguing. It will be so much easier to defeat pretend arguments. Not honest, but certainly easier.

    Pixie makes a big deal about Gonzalez’s co-authored an ID book. Many of fellows have written more ID books than Gonzalez and much more active in the public arena. Pixie, the bigot, just doesn’t want to be confused by the facts.

    The fact is that Gonzalez is a very prominent ID supporting.

    The fact is that you lied when you said he was merely sympathetic to ID.

    Really, whether he is a top 20 IDists, or a top 50 IDists is not relevant to those two facts.

    Pix: Feel free to find 20 more important IDists (I have no idea why you have not done so already

    Tel: This is so blatantly ignorant. I have suggested that in my opinion several of the fellows in CSC that are more important and more prominent than Gonzalez, but that is my opinion. I have no idea as to how DI values its’ members. But I am sure Pixie can make something up to enlighten the rest of us. After all isn’t that what atheists and Darwinians like Pixie do best?

    I was not talking about the DI with respect to the top 20 IDists. The DI clearly rank Gonzalez in the top 15, using whatever unknown system. The top 20 is of all IDists, so certainly Denton should be in the list, despite not being a DI fellow. I am happy for you to give your own criteria – as long as you state them – and judge the top 20 IDists on that basis. Of course, anyone reading this thread will judge your integrity on what criteria you choose, so I am hoping that will be incentive for you to choose fair criteria.

  93. Actually my argument is that on this thread you have selected a handful of links to unashamedly pro-ID web pages to support your argument

    Stop lying Pixie! What you did was used flawed logic to dispute what I said.

    I find this laughable, when Tel bases his claims on this thread on web pages written by “ID The Future” and the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture. Is Tel aware that these are pro-ID organisations, with a bias against modern evolutionary theory?

    I think it must have been a maniacal laughter. Only a jaundice Darwinian would try to use this sort of irrational argument. Think about it for a minute, Pixie is implying that by my use of a pro-ID group to criticize talkorigins is invalid. The problem with this line of argument is that Pixie is a bigoted atheist who is radically against ID groups. Therefore if he thinks that a pro-ID group’s criticism of a biased evolution group is invalid, that would make his objection to pro-ID groups invalid also, because of his bias against ID. Is Pixie aware that he is anti-ID, with a bias against intelligent design theory?

    You cited six web pages at “Evolution news” , which is run by the DI CSC, and one web page at “ID The Future” . Which of these do you think is neutral? I could do with another good laugh!

    This is so lamed. What a despicable deceptive atheist you are. The neutral link was from a different post and it was directed to a link that Zachriel cited. As to my posting in this thread, I never said that DI was neutral. People can read the links and follow the references in the OP links and make up their own mind. You are such a despicable atheist for your misleading accusations.

    Great. Like I provided a neutral site (by a Christian, Chris Heard) about Avalos.

    Stop lying! What makes you think that site is neutral, for all I know he could be some sort of delusional self proclaimed Christian? I am an atheist, remember, does that make my what I post on this blog neutral?

    Well, actually I have. I have documented that Gonzalez is a senior fellow of the DI CSC. I have documented that Gonzalez is co-author of a pro-ID book.

    Still more gobblegegook. The question here is not if Gonzalez is a senior fellow or if he’s written a pro-ID book. The question here is that you are a bigot and you lied about having evidence that proofs Gonzalez is one of the most important IDists in the DI CSC. You have no evidence of that, but you keep telling the lie over and over again. I on the other hand have show ample reason why IMO that there are many others who I consider much more important than Gonzalez in the field of ID. Paul Nelson, Cornelius Hunter, John Angus Campbell, Scott Minnich, Richard Weikart and Nancy Pearcey are all fellows not “senior fellows” . Many of them have written more pro-ID books than Gonzalez. They post regularly on DI’s blogs and attend ID conferences. Is Pixie a mind reader? How does he know that Gonzalez is a stronger and more important supporter of ID than these other fellows? Pixie is the real liar and a despicable bigot here.

    As a matter of fact Paul Nelson, Dean Kenyon, Walter Bradley and John Angus Campbell were a part of the Pajaro group, which some have credited for spearheading the current ID science. All these gentlemen are listed as fellows in CSC. Pixie would have you believe that these men are less important than Gonzalez.

  94. This is so lamed. What a despicable deceptive atheist you are. The neutral link was from a different post and it was directed to a link that Zachriel cited. As to my posting in this thread, I never said that DI was neutral. People can read the links and follow the references in the OP links and make up their own mind. You are such a despicable atheist for your misleading accusations.

    Ah, well, at least you admit that your OP is based solely on pro-ID web sites. I guess that is some progress.

    Stop lying! What makes you think that site is neutral, for all I know he could be some sort of delusional self proclaimed Christian?

    He “pretends” to be a professor of theology. If you go to the web site of the college he “pretends” to lecture at, you will find there is someone with the same name listed as a professor of theology. Quite the coincidence. You will also find a link from the university web site to the blog site I linked to.

    Of course, he might be a theology professor at a US university who is some sort of delusional self proclaimed Christian, but I find that unlikely. I think it rather more likely that he is what he says he is.

    Still more gobblegegook. The question here is not if Gonzalez is a senior fellow or if he’s written a pro-ID book. The question here is that you are a bigot and you lied about having evidence that proofs Gonzalez is one of the most important IDists in the DI CSC.

    Oo, sneaky!

    No, the real question here is that you are a bigot and you lied that Gonzalez is “merely” sympathic to ID.

    But can you clarify. Are you really pretending that Gonzalez is not one of the most important IDists in the DI CSC? Or are you just pretending I have not proved it?

    You have no evidence of that, but you keep telling the lie over and over again. I on the other hand have show ample reason why IMO that there are many others who I consider much more important than Gonzalez in the field of ID.

    Oo, again, very sneaky.

    First it was “one of the most important IDists in the DI CSC”, then it quietly changes to “much more important than Gonzalez in the field of ID”. I hope everyone can see the difference here.

    Paul Nelson, Cornelius Hunter, John Angus Campbell, Scott Minnich, Richard Weikart and Nancy Pearcey are all fellows not “senior fellows” . Many of them have written more pro-ID books than Gonzalez. They post regularly on DI’s blogs and attend ID conferences. Is Pixie a mind reader? How does he know that Gonzalez is a stronger and more important supporter of ID than these other fellows? Pixie is the real liar and a despicable bigot here.

    And now the pay-off. By switching between important in the DI CSC (where it is documented that Gonzalerz is a senior fellow) and important in the field of ID (where his importance is certainly more subjective), Tel creates a web of deceit.

    But webs are easily brushed aside by the truth.

    #1: I claim Gonzalez is one of the top 15 IDists in the DI, based on his being a senior fellow, where Nelson et al. are not. I do not know how the DI determine their ranking, but they have a ranking, so I assume there is some system. Maybe Gonzalez is very good friends with Meyer. Maybe he handed over a sackful of cash. Maybe the DI recognise the work he has done in ID (are any other fellows doing ID research?). However they do it, the DI CSC have ranked Gonzalez in the top 15. This is a simple fact, proven on the DI web site, and the only way Tel can hope to dispute it is by sowing confusing. If he had any honest (or indeed any sense) he would admit that.

    #2: I contend that Gonzalez is in the top 20 IDists in the world. I accept I could be wrong. And I would not base that top 20 on the DI CSC ranking, as, for a start it excludes Denton, whom I would certainly put above Gonzalez.

    As a matter of fact Paul Nelson, Dean Kenyon, Walter Bradley and John Angus Campbell were a part of the Pajaro group, which some have credited for spearheading the current ID science. All these gentlemen are listed as fellows in CSC. Pixie would have you believe that these men are less important than Gonzalez.

    You see, sowing that confusion again. I would have people believe that the DI CSC ranks Paul Nelson, Dean Kenyon, Walter Bradley and John Angus Campbell below Gonzalez. And I documented that. The DI CSC made Gonzalez a senior fellow, they made the others just fellows. That means they rank Gonzalez above the others. I really do not get how that can be disputed.

    Are Paul Nelson, Dean Kenyon, Walter Bradley and John Angus Campbell more important than Gonzalez in the field of ID? Okay, I will take your word for. Find another 16 and you can prove me wrong about Gonzalez being a top 20 IDists.

    Of course, it will still be a despicable lie that he is merely sympathetic to ID.

  95. Ah, well, at least you admit that your OP is based solely on pro-ID web sites. I guess that is some progress.

    This is how a pathetic bigoted atheist like Pixie responds when he’s been caught in his deception.

    He “pretends” to be a professor of theology.

    Did I say he pretended to be professor? Cuckoo”Cuckoo.

    No, the real question here is that you are a bigot and you lied that Gonzalez is “merely” sympathic to ID.

    Oo, sneaky! The difference between Pixie’s lies and what I am saying is that I have Pixie’s own words in full context and nothing else to PROVE that you are a bigot.

    Pixie the bigoted atheist said: I think I would prefer to answer this one: Do you think it is fair for a group of theists and atheists to persecute an accomplished associate professor for no other reason other than the fact that he is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, the most prominent ID organisation and author of an ID book?

    And I shall answer ” yes” .

    First it was “one of the most important IDists in the DI CSC” , then it quietly changes to “much more important than Gonzalez in the field of ID” .

    This is an example of what a despicable bigot and an amoral atheist like Pixie does. He keep droning on and on in the hopes that I may rephrase something in a different way thereby insinuate that there is a change in what I am saying. Would the readers please notice that thus far in this entire thread Pixie has yet to show any evidence to prove that Gonzalez is the most important IDists in the DI CSC as he claims.

    teleologist: The question here is not if Gonzalez is a senior fellow or if he’s written a pro-ID book. The question here is that you are a bigot and you lied about having evidence that proofs Gonzalez is one of the most important IDists in the DI CSC. You have no evidence of that, but you keep telling the lie over and over again. I on the other hand have show ample reason why IMO that there are many others who I consider much more important than Gonzalez in the field of ID. Paul Nelson, Cornelius Hunter, John Angus Campbell, Scott Minnich, Richard Weikart and Nancy Pearcey are all fellows not “senior fellows” . Many of them have written more pro-ID books than Gonzalez. They post regularly on DI’s blogs and attend ID conferences. Is Pixie a mind reader? How does he know that Gonzalez is a stronger and more important supporter of ID than these other fellows? Pixie is the real liar and a despicable bigot here.

    As a matter of fact Paul Nelson, Dean Kenyon, Walter Bradley and John Angus Campbell were a part of the Pajaro group, which some have credited for spearheading the current ID science. All these gentlemen are listed as fellows in CSC. Pixie would have you believe that these men are less important than Gonzalez.

    Keep watching for how Pixie the amoral atheist continues to divert attention away from his inability to provide PROOF of his lies.

    Are Paul Nelson, Dean Kenyon, Walter Bradley and John Angus Campbell more important than Gonzalez in the field of ID?

    To borrow Pixie’s phrase, “and now the pay-off” . Pixie the bigoted atheist claims to have evidence that shows why Gonzalez is one of the ” most important IDists in the DI CSC” . What was his evidence? Gonzalez was a senior fellow in CSC and he co-author a pro-ID book. Now he finally cannot escape the FACT that there are FELLOWS in CSC who are more important than Gonzalez and who have written more pro-ID books than Gonzalez. All the false premise and assumption that his lies have been built on has collapsed. CASE CLOSED!

  96. This is an example of what a despicable bigot and an amoral atheist like Pixie does. He keep droning on and on in the hopes that I may rephrase something in a different way thereby insinuate that there is a change in what I am saying. Would the readers please notice that thus far in this entire thread Pixie has yet to show any evidence to prove that Gonzalez is the most important IDists in the DI CSC as he claims.

    I said Gonzalez is one of the top 15 IDists in the DI CSC. I documented that with a web page at the DI CSC.

    It is as simple as that.

    I proved that you lied when you said he was merely sympathetic to ID.

    It is as simple as that. CASE CLOSED. Or so anyone would imagine.

    To borrow Pixie’s phrase, “and now the pay-off” . Pixie the bigoted atheist claims to have evidence that shows why Gonzalez is one of the ” most important IDists in the DI CSC” . What was his evidence? Gonzalez was a senior fellow in CSC and he co-author a pro-ID book. Now he finally cannot escape the FACT that there are FELLOWS in CSC who are more important than Gonzalez and who have written more pro-ID books than Gonzalez. All the false premise and assumption that his lies have been built on has collapsed. CASE CLOSED!

    Ah again with the same conflating of two different claim.

    #1: The DI CSC web site states clearly that Gonzalez is one of the top 15 IDists in the DI CSC.

    #2: I believe Gonzalez is one of the top 20 IDists in the world, and I have no problem putting some of the DI CSC fellows higher than Gonzalez, even though it is documented that the DI CSC rank Gonzalez higher for whatever reason. But there are senior fellows I would rank below him. I have not heard of Chien, Keas, Richards or Wiker, so personally I would rank Gonzalez above them. Make a list of 20 IDists and prove me wrong. People will wonder why you do not.

    Here is what I originally claimed in post #55:

    Come on. Gonzalez has to be one of the top twenty most significant IDists in the world. He is definitely one of the top 14 in the DI CSC. To say he is merely sympathetic to ID is, well, dishonest, assuming you know anything about the ID movement.

    [I revised that to top 15 in the DI CSC in post #57, to allow for Program Advisors, Phillip E Johnson, as it is not clear where he would rank]

    Right from the start I differentiated between my opinion of Gonzalez’ rank in the world and his documented rank in the DI CSC. It is dishonest of you to pretend these are one and the same. Not that that will stop you, I know.

  97. Is Pixie still droning on with his lies? All the reader has to do is remember these two things. Did he make the statements that I quoted from him? Yes! Did he lied about having evidence that shows why Gonzalez is one of the ” most important IDists in the DI CSC” ? Yes!

    Pixie the bigoted atheist said: I think I would prefer to answer this one: Do you think it is fair for a group of theists and atheists to persecute an accomplished associate professor for no other reason other than the fact that he is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, the most prominent ID organisation and author of an ID book?
    And I shall answer ” yes” .

    teleologist: The question here is not if Gonzalez is a senior fellow or if he’s written a pro-ID book. The question here is that you are a bigot and you lied about having evidence that proofs Gonzalez is one of the most important IDists in the DI CSC. You have no evidence of that, but you keep telling the lie over and over again. I on the other hand have show ample reason why IMO that there are many others who I consider much more important than Gonzalez in the field of ID. Paul Nelson, Cornelius Hunter, John Angus Campbell, Scott Minnich, Richard Weikart and Nancy Pearcey are all fellows not “senior fellows” . Many of them have written more pro-ID books than Gonzalez. They post regularly on DI’s blogs and attend ID conferences. Is Pixie a mind reader? How does he know that Gonzalez is a stronger and more important supporter of ID than these other fellows? Pixie is the real liar and a despicable bigot here.
    As a matter of fact Paul Nelson, Dean Kenyon, Walter Bradley and John Angus Campbell were a part of the Pajaro group, which some have credited for spearheading the current ID science. All these gentlemen are listed as fellows in CSC. Pixie would have you believe that these men are less important than Gonzalez.

    Keep watching for how Pixie the amoral atheist continues to divert attention away from his inability to provide PROOF of his lies.

    Are Paul Nelson, Dean Kenyon, Walter Bradley and John Angus Campbell more important than Gonzalez in the field of ID? Okay, I will take your word for. Find another 16 and you can prove me wrong about Gonzalez being a top 20 IDists.

    To borrow Pixie’s phrase, “and now the pay-off” . Pixie the bigoted atheist claims to have evidence that shows why Gonzalez is one of the ” most important IDists in the DI CSC” . What was his evidence? Gonzalez was a senior fellow in CSC and he co-author a pro-ID book. Now he finally cannot escape the FACT that there are FELLOWS in CSC who are more important than Gonzalez and who have written more pro-ID books than Gonzalez. All the false premise and assumption that his lies have been built on has collapsed. CASE CLOSED!

  98. Is Pixie still droning on with his lies? All the reader has to do is remember these two things. Did he make the statements that I quoted from him? Yes! Did he lied about having evidence that shows why Gonzalez is one of the ” most important IDists in the DI CSC” ? Yes!

    Talking to yourself is not a good sign!

    The truth is that I have documented that Gonzalez is one of the “most important IDists in the DI CSC.”

    Here is the link. Again.
    http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php

    Keep watching for how Pixie the amoral atheist continues to divert attention away from his inability to provide PROOF of his lies.

    Nonsense. I documented that Gonzalez is one of the “most important IDists in the DI CSC.”

    Here is the link. Again.
    http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php

    To borrow Pixie’s phrase, “and now the pay-off” . Pixie the bigoted atheist claims to have evidence that shows why Gonzalez is one of the ” most important IDists in the DI CSC” . What was his evidence?

    Here is a link to the evidence. Again.
    http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php

    Gonzalez was a senior fellow in CSC and he co-author a pro-ID book.

    Is this at last a confession that Tel lied when he said Gonzalez is merely sympathetic to ID in post #33?

  99. The truth is that I have documented that Gonzalez is one of the “most important IDists in the DI CSC.”

    Pixie is still lying! All he has done is documented his opinion on what he thinks how DI evaluate their fellows. Did he make the statements that I quoted from him? Yes! Did he lied about having evidence that shows why Gonzalez is one of the ” most important IDists in the DI CSC” ? Yes!

    Pixie the bigoted atheist said: I think I would prefer to answer this one: Do you think it is fair for a group of theists and atheists to persecute an accomplished associate professor for no other reason other than the fact that he is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, the most prominent ID organisation and author of an ID book?
    And I shall answer ” yes” .

    teleologist: The question here is not if Gonzalez is a senior fellow or if he’s written a pro-ID book. The question here is that you are a bigot and you lied about having evidence that proofs Gonzalez is one of the most important IDists in the DI CSC. You have no evidence of that, but you keep telling the lie over and over again. I on the other hand have show ample reason why IMO that there are many others who I consider much more important than Gonzalez in the field of ID. Paul Nelson, Cornelius Hunter, John Angus Campbell, Scott Minnich, Richard Weikart and Nancy Pearcey are all fellows not “senior fellows” . Many of them have written more pro-ID books than Gonzalez. They post regularly on DI’s blogs and attend ID conferences. Is Pixie a mind reader? How does he know that Gonzalez is a stronger and more important supporter of ID than these other fellows? Pixie is the real liar and a despicable bigot here.
    As a matter of fact Paul Nelson, Dean Kenyon, Walter Bradley and John Angus Campbell were a part of the Pajaro group, which some have credited for spearheading the current ID science. All these gentlemen are listed as fellows in CSC. Pixie would have you believe that these men are less important than Gonzalez.

    Keep watching for how Pixie the amoral atheist continues to divert attention away from his inability to provide PROOF of his lies.

    Are Paul Nelson, Dean Kenyon, Walter Bradley and John Angus Campbell more important than Gonzalez in the field of ID? Okay, I will take your word for. Find another 16 and you can prove me wrong about Gonzalez being a top 20 IDists.

    To borrow Pixie’s phrase, “and now the pay-off” . Pixie the bigoted atheist claims to have evidence that shows why Gonzalez is one of the ” most important IDists in the DI CSC” . What was his evidence? Gonzalez was a senior fellow in CSC and he co-author a pro-ID book. Now he finally cannot escape the FACT that there are FELLOWS in CSC who are more important than Gonzalez and who have written more pro-ID books than Gonzalez. All the false premise and assumption that his lies have been built on has collapsed. CASE CLOSED!

  100. Pixie is still lying! All he has done is documented his opinion on what he thinks how DI evaluate their fellows.

    I do not know what criteria the DI use to rank their fellows, and I have never claimed to.

    However, I do know the outcome is. They rank Gonzalez as a senior fellow, putting him in their top 15. And that is not an opinion, that is a documented fact.

    Did he lied about having evidence that shows why Gonzalez is one of the ” most important IDists in the DI CSC” ? Yes!

    How very dishonest of you, Tel! I have never said anything about why Gonzalez is one of the ” most important IDists in the DI CSC” .

    All I have done is said and documented that he is one of the ” most important IDists in the DI CSC”.

    Tel, do you really want to argue – to go on record stating – that Gonzalez is not one of the ” most important IDists in the DI CSC”? Or are you just trying to contrive an argument for the sake of it?

  101. Thank you to Pixie for his contribution to this thread, but it is now time to end his bloviating and repetitive diatribe. Let me conclude by bringing us back to the OP.

    I highlighted the unjust persecution of Gonzalez for tenure by atheist bigots in the likes of Avalos at Iowa State. I presented the evidence through the links provided by EN&V and IDTF. Thanks to Pixie who gave us a live demonstration of this despicable behavior from atheist bigots like himself and Avalos.

    Pixie the bigoted atheist said: I think I would prefer to answer this one: Do you think it is fair for a group of theists and atheists to persecute an accomplished associate professor for no other reason other than the fact that he is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, the most prominent ID organisation and author of an ID book?

    And I shall answer ” yes” .

    This is how atheist bigots like Pixie attempts to silence any attack on his religion. It doesn’t matter to them that Gonzalez’s personal affiliation to ID has absolutely NO CONNECTION to his academic works. Atheist bigots can’t stand to have someone with the status of a university professor that challenges their religious beliefs.

    In the course of this debate Pixie tried to demonize Gonzalez by insinuating Gonzalez’s mere affiliation with DI CSC is sufficient to disqualify him from tenure. He attempted to trumped up how important Gonzalez is to DI, but he failed to provide any evidence for how DI evaluate and values its’ members. But for a Darwinian bigot like Pixie, he won’t let a little thing like absences of evidence stop him from asserting his speculation as fact. Let me remind the readers of what Pixie said in comment #57.

    Together with Meyer, West and twelve senior fellows, these are the fifteen most important IDists in the DI CSC. Of that there can be no doubt.

    Pixie’s only claim for Gonzalez’s most important status is that he is a senior fellow and co-authored a pro-ID book. He has ABSOLUTELY NO DIRECT EVIDENCE on how DI values their members. On the other hand, there are much more evidence to suggest the importance of a member is not just based on fellowship or how many books one has authored. For instance, Paul Nelson, Cornelius Hunter, John Angus Campbell, Scott Minnich, Richard Weikart and Nancy Pearcey are all fellows not “senior fellows” . Many of them have written more pro-ID books than Gonzalez. They post regularly on DI’s blogs and attend ID conferences. Is Pixie a mind reader? How does he know that Gonzalez is the most important IDist to DI?

    As a matter of fact Paul Nelson, Dean Kenyon, Walter Bradley and John Angus Campbell were a part of the Pajaro group, which some have credited for spearheading the current ID science. All these gentlemen are listed as fellows in CSC. Pixie would have you believe that these men are less important than Gonzalez. Pixie is a Master of Obfusaction and Equivocation.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.