Home » Education » Comments about Comments

Comments about Comments

I want to encourage productive comments on this blog. To that end, let me indicate some initial policies that I plan to enforce:

(1) Thou shalt not be boring, and the person you least want to bore is me. In particular, I’ve been at this game for about fifteen years now, so I’ve seen most of the objections. Don’t repeat what I likely have already seen (for an overview of the sorts of objections I’ve seen and handled, consult my book The Design Revolution).

(2) I don’t plan on policing or editing comments. If you post a comment that I don’t think is productive, I’ll probably not just eliminate your comment but you from this blog (which, given the way WordPress handles comments, means all your comments will be removed). So if you have any doubts about whether I’m going to react negatively to your comments, back them up — I won’t. Note also that I’ve had it happen where someone ingratiates himself with me and then turns. Bait and switch is a sure way to be banned from commenting here.

(3) This blog is for me mainly to get out news items about the ID movement and my work in particular. For more sustained writing and development of my ideas, I refer you to my website: www.designinference.com. I am not a journalist nor do I intend to become one. Thus this is not “The ID Answer Man” or “Ask Your Questions about ID Forum.” If I don’t respond to your comments and questions, even if they are good comments and questions, understand that I have way more commitments than I can fulfill, and that I will only occasionally contribute to a comment thread here.

Finally, there is one cardinal rule at this blog, namely, I make up the rules as I go along. In other words, these policies can change at any time. Moreover, if they change, it will most likely be in the direction of curtailing the time I need to spend with comments.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

17 Responses to Comments about Comments

  1. Dear William Dembski,

    I haven’t read too much of your work yet, but I’ve enjoyed what I have read so far.

    You may not have time to look into it yourself, but I’ve been doing a bit of debating with the guys over at talk.origins.com. I’m an ID enthusiast and have my own website detailing my own ideas about the limits of evolutionary potential. It seems to me that evolution is limited to very low levels of functional/informational complexity by what I call the neutral gap problem. Several well-educated scientists who frequent talk.origins, where I do a bit of debating to refine my position, are claiming that my ideas make absolutely no sense at all to them and that even those on my side of the fence (they often mention you by name) wouldn’t agree with me either.

    So, I was wondering, if you ever have the time, reviewing some of my thoughts and ideas on this topic? Thanks again for all you’ve done so far – -

    Sean Pitman, M.D.
    Chief Pathology resident, LLUMC

    Email: [email protected]
    Website: http://www.DetectingDesign.com

  2. I have read your book The Design Revolution. However, I have one problem; you write: “Where they get number zero?.. They are all written by design theorists and are listed in the ISCID bibliography ()” (p. 303)

    When I tried use the web address (above), it asked Member Name and Password of ISCID. And I’m not member. Could there be any free web address, where some kind of free list could be situated. (I know your short, free list in http://www.designinference.com.....ID_FAQ.pdf)

  3. [...] Finally, there’s Uncommon Descent, The Intelligent Design Weblog of William A. Dembski Bill Dembski & Friends. William Dembski is a proponent of Intelligent Design, the pseudoscience you may also know as neo-creationism, creationism lite, or “the logos of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,” in the exact words of Dembski himself. Anyhow, he started his blog back in April 2005, declaring that he didn’t plan on editing or deleting comments, except those that were “boring” or “unproductive.” He also said that he would make up the rules as he went along, and that he did. [...]

  4. Inoculated: I read through your blog post on Uncommon Descent. “Incorrect on many points” would be putting it mildly. But considering the blogs you hold up as deserving respect I’m not surprised at your mindset.

    I will quickly comment on 3 things:

    1. I’m actually surprised by the amount of crud we have to deal with as moderators on this site. I’m not surprised Bill gave up on it as too time-consuming.

    2. I usually skim through most of the posts. I’ve been trying to crack down on the “Duhhh, evolutionists are stoopid”-type comments. Of course, you don’t see that since they’re caught in the mod filter.

    3. The “rules” are pretty simple. Don’t repeat bad arguments that are commonly repeated on Panda’s Thumb. See this game for a sample of those type of arguments:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....monium.swf

  5. [...] Hat tip: Uncommon Descent Comments » [...]

  6. [...] As the result of a somewhat insensitive and politically incorrect comment I made about evolutionary anthropology here, I have been immortalized for a few minutes at scienceblogs.com. [...]

  7. Regarding Professor Pianka’s poignant speech at the Texas Academy of Science’s annual meeting, I will admit that I was impressed by Forrest Mimms’ thumbnail reporting of it, but I have to say that I question Pianka’s 90% figure for ‘population pruning’. I recently pruned my lemon tree by only 50%, and the balance of the tree died! I would therefore question the efficacy of his 90% figure, and say that further research is necessary.

    In his introduction to biology 213, he expounds on critical issues, such as the relevance of biology in regards to ecological stability. Given that premise, he may then want to take into account the effect of all that ebola on his lizards and snakes.

    He also highlights the class curricula, and poses study questions like, “Why do we become senile when we become old?”

    Although it doesn’t answer the question, his eboa suggestion pretty well confirms the validity of that hypothesis.

    Lee Bowman

  8. Just signed up for your webblog and may post at some point. Thought I’d say hi, and give you a thumbnail bio. If it’s too long, I apologize, but if you hang in there, you’ll know me better. Sometimes I feel like a Christian wearing ‘body armor’, IYKWIM.

    First, thanks for the work you’re doing. It’s hard enough for me, a lay person by academic standards to take the abuse I receive from evolutionary adherents, but for people like you and Michael Behe to take the crap that’s handed to you daily, colleagues refusing to offer peer review, being shunned by professional organizations, banned from publishing in various journals, probably some hate mail, the list goes on, and yet they are wrong. They have been blindsided by their own research; forced to march in lockstep on a quest to prove evolution, and chided by their own community if they wander. It’s been said that 1% of them disbelieve in macroevolution, but the number has to be much higher.

    I may be an outsider, but when I view the NAS web pages, I see a biased, political approach in promoting their agenda. Guess where their grant money goes. And have you read remarks of their president, Bruce Alberts? Here’s 2 recent Behe targeted letters:
    http://www.nasonline.org/site/....._evolution
    http://www.nasonline.org/site/.....?docID=801

    I’ve read the transcripts of the Dover trial. I haven’t read “Traipsing … ” yet, but I’ve commented critically on Judge Jones’ decision online with points I’m sure your staff has made, and was roundly lambasted on talk.origins. Judge Jones did what he felt he had to do, but overstepped, IMO.
    http://tinyurl.com/htx9t

    I also read and enjoyed your rebuttal to 5 of 6 testimonies of expert witnesses.

    Your mathematical approach to evolution interests me. Although not a math major, I do understand some of the principals of logic and statistical analyses. (I peeked at your 28970 Midterm Exam on Critical Thinking and Argumentation as well). I predict that these two areas of thought and analysis, along with detailed examples of complex anatomic structures, will help make the case for design. In addition, some kind of computer modeling to replicate supposed evolutionary constructs will likely never succeed in doing just that, but although you technically cannot prove a negative, the abyss will surely widen.

    You know, God could reveal himself and settle the question, but that will never happen. The theme park constructed for us down here will continue to be the ‘adventure of a lifetime’, and perils will continue on and may worsen, but that is what was intended for us. A life where faith is key to fulfillment, rather than a ‘forced upon us’ creator. It makes perfect sense.

    My goal is to argue design, but do it in a congenial way. I never curse; never issue ad hominem attacks, and listen to the arguments against design. Like you, I now have heard most of them, but I’m still searching for answers that better convince the skeptics. Because of the camp I confront, I don’t mention my personal faith, the bible, or anything that they consider blatant creationism. I confess to not embracing the Genesis account of creation. My objective is to interject enough doubt into their belief structure that some of them may eventually cross the bridge of faith.

    If you’re still with me, and would like to see some of my rants, goto:
    http://tinyurl.com/frszs

    Any comments regarding my approach are welcome.

    Best regards,

    Lee Bowman
    Professor or Reality
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    480.496.5790

  9. [...] William Dembski has posted a letter to Kathryn Perez, who started the petition against Forrest Mims, from Dr. Kenneth R. Summy, from the University of Texas Biology Department. The letter states that Mims did NOT lie or misrepresent what Dr. Pianka said. Summy was at the speech and attests to the fact that Pianka said the very same things that Mims described. [...]

  10. [...] In addition to being an equal partner with me on this blog, Denyse has also agreed to moderate it. I want to thank DaveScot for his untiring efforts this last half year in moderating this blog. But as he wrote here: Commenting is what I like doing here. Moderating is a pain that I can do without. If appending my comments directly onto others is too much to ask in return for all the time spent moderating then I’m going to quit moderating. Someone else can do it and I’ll just be a regular user once more. [...]

  11. [...] Denyse O’Leary July 18, 2006 Posted by pegase in William Dembski, DaveScot, Denyse O’Leary. trackback The new UD with Denyse O’Leary: “Uncommon Descent (T) is about to become ‘TheIntelligent Design (T) Weblog of William Dembski (T), Denyse O’Leary (T), and Friends.’ O’Leary is a Toronto-based Canadian journalist and the author of By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg 2004), an investigation of the intelligent design controversy. In addition to being an equal partner with me on this blog, Denyse has also […]” [...]

  12. [...] An interesting debate is going on at Uncommon Descent that relates to my Moral Eureka post. As you can see, it just goes round and round everywhere it comes up. [...]

  13. [...] A clear sign that people are losing an argument (at least as they themselves have framed it) is when they do what Darwinist Pigliucci and others are doing, as per Bill’s recent post. [...]

  14. [...] Link to: original blogpost – comments [...]

  15. [...] Link to: original blogpost – comments [...]

  16. [...] Comments about Comments by William Dembski on April 16th, 2005 [...]

Leave a Reply