I don't have enough time to be an internet junkie anymore... but that doesn't keep me from it - just slows me down a tad. I find that when I don't have the block of time it takes to do a post, I can still find a minute or two to post a reply elsewhere...

And a lot of time, my thoughts after posting that reply are, "wish I had said that on my page..."

I think its because the interaction forces me to think of things from different angles, and gives me a better shoving off point for getting my thoughts out. So, anyway, I have a minute or two now, and I want to quote my better, blog-commenting self a time or two.

smijer on ID:

No, I'm judging him on the basis of the egregious errors he makes in his essay. It's different. Behe would avoid the errors he makes being familiar with the science, despite the fact that he is committed to ID.

On the other hand, Michael Denton made one very egregious error in his quest to shore up the foundation of ID, and he is a trained molecular biologist. This proves that even trained biologists can screw up when they let the agenda lead as ID proponents do, instead of letting the evidence lead. Denton did, however, eventually admit his mistake and accept the validity of the evidence for common descent. Which is probably why you don't hear his name much at the Discovery Institute any more.

It's worth pointing out before I go on to explain why I wanted to quote this here that many or most ID proponents are not biologists. Matter of fact, that should be one of the things that the rest of us should be shouting from the rooftops about ID and other variations of creationism. Philip Johnson, chief architect of the ID Movement, is a lawyer. William Dembski, one of ID's best known popularizers, is a mathematician. Henry Schaefer, a chemist. David Berlinski, a philosopher. Roland Hirsch, chemist. In fact, in order to scrounge up a mere 400 names of "Scientists" who "are skeptical of" (the sufficiency of) evolution (to explain certain aspects of natural history) for its list, the Discovery Institute was willing to include such luminaries as:

Donald J. Harahan, PhD - electrical engineering
Theodore W. Geier, PhD - Forrest (sic) Hydrology
Karl Duff, ScD - mechanical engineering
James Thompson - Professor of Statistics
J.B. Lee - Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering
and, perhaps my favorite:
Perry Mason - Professor of Mathematics and Physical Science, Lubbock Christian University.

I'm impressed.

But seriously, only a tiny minority are actual, trained biologists. Some of them aren't even scientists (engineering ain't science). Yet, the DI headlines their announcement thusly: "Over 400 Scientists Convinced by New Scientific Evidence (sic) that Darwinian Evolution is Deficient". (The statement signed by these 400 luminaries actually says nothing about "new scientific evidence", and one of the most notable things about the DI is that they have yet to provide anything empirical in support of their claims. If ID is such a wonderful theory, why do they have to lie so much?)

Now that that is out of the way... the point: for the few actual biologists who entertain ID, it is universally the case that their theological axe to grind steers their opinions and research on the science. That's why Michael Denton made his big dumb error. And that's why, after Denton acknowledged his error and the fact of common descent, he became largely orphaned by the rest of the movement. And that's why, even the Movement who are actually trained biologists, we find evidence that their ideology precedes their evidence in sorting out their views. Take Jonathan Wells, for instance, who pursued his PhD for the purpose of furthering the Unification church's political goals.

And that's the point... whether it is the effects of tobacco, global warming, evolution, or whatever else - if your agenda isn't to best understand the evidence no matter where it leads, you are bound to produce mistakes and bad results. And that's the real problem with intelligent design.

A couple of other smijer quotes, with less commentary:

smijer on Gay Marriage:

It's of major social importance in the U.S. to build institutions which encourage monogamy and foster strong families... it's the most important thing in the world to the "Pro-Family" group... until you want to include gays. Suddently "pro-" turns into violently and hatefully "anti-"...

Fact is, it ain't "family" they are in love with - they can sing the praises of "family" or outlaw it with equal vigor... It's themselves and their pretty little holier-than-thou ideas about morality that they are in love with.

Now, why can't I sum it up so well when I'm posting cold?

On the same thread:

Will of Which People?

The people who actually have a stake in it? Their will is to be entitled to marry.

The will of the people who fear or hate the people who actually have a stake in it? Honestly, I don't see why their will should take precedence since it doesn't affect them in the least. Even if they happen to be in a majority currently.

So, I've said that here before. But it bears repeating.

I had other examples in mind when I started this post, but I'll have to pick them up later... The moral is - post some comments here, folks! Let's have some debate & dialogue!