Home » Intelligent Design » Behe-McWhorter Back Online

Behe-McWhorter Back Online

[Update 8.31.09: The McWhorter-Behe interview is back online at Bloggingheads; Robert Wright, who heads Bloggingheads, was incommunicado during the interview's removal and on his return to wired reality decided to put the dialogue back up. For his explanation of what happened, go here: bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/22075]

[Update 8.28.09: Michael Behe has just posted his take on the bloggingheads matter -- behe.uncommondescent.com]

Isn’t the Internet wonderful. Bloggingheads takes down the Behe-McWhorter discussion one day. A few hours later it’s back up:

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

104 Responses to Behe-McWhorter Back Online

  1. 1

    McWhorter has a wonderful set of lectures on language from The Teaching Company. In those lectures it became clear that he is prepared to step outside the reigning orthodoxy.

  2. McWhorter is an interesting guy and I also highly recommend his Teaching Company courses on linguistics. If you want to understand what the difference is between a creole and a dialect or how languages developed all over the world or how certain sounds for a concept is similar in many languages get his course. He is down to earth and easy to understand.

    He is a mixture of conservative and Black politics who has been critical of black attitudes on education and affirmative action but is also highly critical of many policies that hurt Blacks. He would like to legalize drugs because a lot of Black crime is drug related and thinks it would ease pressures in the Black community to legalize drugs.

    I have some affinity for him since he grew up close to where I used to live in Philadelphia and went to schools where some of my acquaintances went. My initial assessment of him is that he is basically honest and a whole lot of sh__ was probably dumped on him after the posting on Blogging Heads.

  3. Somebody make a copy of this so we do not lose it again or at least make an mp3.

  4. I have the full thing on my hard drive. Actually the video posted is my reduced version with less sound quality.

    As soon as I figure out how to split it I will re-upload it in it’s full uncompressed glory. ;)

  5. Somebody make a copy of this so we do not lose it again or at least make an mp3.

    I downloaded the .wmv file from ExposureRoom and have it archived. (Note the “Download Original” link.)

    I think it’s pretty obvious why the original was removed from Bloggingheads. John McWhorter was far too sympathetic and expressed too much skepticism concerning Darwinian orthodoxy. He even upbraided Behe’s critics for scoffing and not evaluating or addressing Behe’s arguments sufficiently. In addition, Behe is far too rational, calm, and persuasive. The clincher was probably John’s comment about Behe’s arguments and evidence bringing him close to becoming a believer. This is heresy, and warrants excommunication from the church of Darwin.

    The removal of the original from Bloggingheads says far more than words about the frailty and vulnerability of neo-Darwinism.

  6. I am very impressed with McWhorter in the interview. He has done his homework, actually read the material, and is very open-minded to a point of view that may challenge his worldview. It is hard to imagine how he thought that this interview didn’t represent him well. He has had over a decade to think about DBB and he commented intelligently on it.

    It’s a shame that something happened after airing the video that made him think it was better to shelf it after taking the time to prepare and taking both his and Behe’s time in recording.
    I think in the aftermath he learned a little more than he would like to have about the way ID is treated.

  7. I like the blurb given to the file on ExposureRoom. McWhorter praises Behe extensively and gives him a very friendly venue in which to air his views, yet is labeled a “Darwin cultist” by the IDer who uploaded the video.

  8. I don’t believe that the “Darwin cultist” comment was necessarily aimed at McWhorter, but at those who attack Behe so mercilessly and who probably forced the removal of the interview.

    Dr. Behe’s arguments are so air-tight and influential that the Darwin cultist’s only tactic is a combination of strawman arguments (Ken Miller, Sean Carroll, Jerry Coyne, etc.) and censoring his views, as was the case with this video.

  9. Hey thanks to McWhorter and bloggingheads for this video. McWhorter you are asking all the right questions and I’m sure Behe had a great time addressing the issues instead of the more common discrimination.

  10. Where do you read that yakky d? This is all I see:

    “The infamous bloggingheads debate between John McWhorter and the legendary biochemist and ‘Darwin Slayer’, Michael Behe.

    Dr. Behe’s arguments are so air-tight and influential that the Darwin cultist’s only tactic is a combination of strawman arguments (Ken Miller, Sean Carroll, Jerry Coyne, etc.) and censoring his views, as was the case with this video.”

  11. Heh, there is the ‘cultist’ thing. Didn’t see it for some reason the first time round.

    It doesn’t take much thought to realize it he wasn’t referring to John but the people that went off-side on him and made hie take the video down because of “offense”.

    In other words he took the video down after being lambasted by those offended.

  12. yakky d:

    I could be wrong, but I assume that “the Darwin cultist” is meant as a generalisation (as in ‘patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel’) not a reference to McWhorter or any specific individual. I presume that Allen Factor sees McWhorter as relaying the arguments of the “Darwin cultists” (an annoying label, I agree) not being one himself. But you could ask Factor himself.

  13. Gil,

    Yeah, after reading it again, I think you are likely right about the intended target of the “Darwin cultist” label.

    I’m going to wait until Mr McWhorter tells his side of the story before I speculate about who “probably forced the removal of the video”, however.

  14. anonym,

    Yes, I think you and Gil are probably correct.

  15. The video was available for free and open download from bloggingheads.tv up until it was pulled.

  16. I’m glad I could listen to the interview, so thanks to all involved. I remain skeptical about ID, but I agree with others here that the decision to pull it was bizarre and smacks of contemptible censorship. Whoever was behind it will probably soon learn something about the Streisand effect.

  17. Check out the Bloggingheads comments here:

    http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/.....7#poststop

    This comment

    John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable.

    reeks of a confession made with a gun held to one’s head. Furthermore, it makes no sense. McWhorter said what he said and obviously meant it, and Behe did the same, as he always does. What in the hell does “not represent usefully” mean?

    Are only non-objectionable ideas allowed to be heard? According to the frothing-at-the-mouth Darwinists in the comments section, I guess that’s what they think, and want to enforce through threats and intimidation.

  18. 18

    Gil,

    “Are only non-objectionable ideas allowed to be heard? According to the frothing-at-the-mouth Darwinists in the comments section, I guess that’s what they think, and want to enforce through threats and intimidation.”

    It’s because ID is a “pseudo-science.” They’re used to dealing with pseudo-sciences that don’t make any sense, or that have no backup data. It’s easy to dismiss them. What they are not used to dealing with is a “pseudo-science” like ID, that does make sense, and which does have backup data. Therefore, since they can’t easily dismiss ID, their only ammunitions are censorship, threats and intimidation.

  19. All this talk of guns held to people’s heads and censorship, threats, and intimidation is exciting, to be sure, but what actually is being suggested here? Do y’all really think PZ or Dawk called up McWhorter and told him to get Bloggingheads to withdraw the video or else?

  20. yakky d:

    Are you a high school student perchance? Let me tell you how the real world works. McWhorther gets a call from his boss at the Manhattan Institute: “Say, John, several of our biggest donors are threatening to withdraw funding because of your recent stunt at Bloggingheads. Knock it off and get that video pulled.” Of course, I’m not saying that this is what happened. But something like this could easily have happened. I’ve witnessed this sort of stuff first-hand.

  21. Dr Dembski,

    I’m sure I could also create lots of dramatic scenarios to explain the removal of the video, but again, they would be based on exactly zero evidence.

    Is the Manhattan Institute a likely culprit in your view? I gather it’s a conservative think tank which has or had some overlap with the Discovery Institute. It would certainly be ironic if they were responsible for the video’s removal.

  22. yakky d

    Excuse me, you raised the ridiculous scenario about Dawkins directly approaching McWhorter. I sketched a much more realistic scenario. No, I’m not accusing the Manhattan Institute of anything. I am, however, sketching a much more realistic scenario. More realistic still would be Columbia University putting pressure on him.

    But please, answer my question: are you a high school student?

  23. Excuse me, you raised the ridiculous scenario about Dawkins directly approaching McWhorter. I sketched a much more realistic scenario. No, I’m not accusing the Manhattan Institute of anything. I am, however, sketching a much more realistic scenario. More realistic still would be Columbia University putting pressure on him.

    But please, answer my question: are you a high school student?

    No, I am not a high school student.

    But who at Columbia do you have in mind? Fellow faculty members? His dean? The president?

  24. I’m not sure why, but my earlier post didn’t go through. I was able to split the original video in two parts so I could upload it to windows live.

    They are 50MB’s a piece in case your on dial-up.

    http://cid-279eee3e1f797824.sk.....38;lc=4105

  25. For the sorts of shenanigans that can occur at those bastions of academic freedom known as universities, check out:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ign-fatal/

    AND

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....atics-lab/

  26. Yakky, what do you do when your in a hole? Google it.

  27. yakky,

    Read the quote again. John McWhorter is a guy on his knees begging forgiveness for an unpardonable sin, and promising repentance. How could this not be obvious?

    Listen to the interview, and then ask yourself, Why would he do this?

    Here we find a classic case of a design inference. John did not suddenly (in a matter of hours), accidentally come to his senses and realize that ID is a bunch of BS based on pseudo-science, and conclude that everything he said in the interview was wrong.

    He was obviously coerced — by what means and by whom I cannot say – but he was obviously coerced.

    I cannot identify the coercer, but I am confident that he (she, it, they, or whatever) exists, because logic and evidence make it the most reasonable inference.

  28. For the sorts of shenanigans that can occur at those bastions of academic freedom known as universities, check out:

    I am aware that all sorts of things can happen at universities.

    But you’ve already floated theories involving McWhorter’s associates at the Manhattan Institute and Columbia with absolutely no evidence in hand. Perhaps it would be best to wait until the facts come out before speculating like this.

  29. yakky d

    Give it a rest. You started the wild speculation. I made it more realistic. Yes, it’s still speculation, but the scenario I sketched certainly has precedent.

  30. Enough of this useless talk! Let’s start banning darwinists! If they can do it, why can’t we?

    I suggest we ban a few of them. In any case they contribute absolutely NOTHING to UD.

  31. Dr Dembski,

    Give it a rest. You started the wild speculation. I made it more realistic. Yes, it’s still speculation, but the scenario I sketched certainly has precedent.

    Let me just clarify that I wasn’t speculating that PZ or Dawkins actually were responsible in any way; I was trying to be a little facetious there. I think it would be totally out of character for either one of them to be involved in something like this.

    My sense however was the more visible scientist/bloggers who are active in the ID debate were considered the most likely suspects in the alleged censorship of the video. For example, vjtorley (whom I have a lot of respect for) said this in the other thread on this topic:

    This is pure speculation on my part, but my guess is that some influential biologists sensed the damage that an interview like this could do if it became publicly available, and quietly brought pressure to bear on McWhorter to yank it off the air.

  32. Gil,

    You could be right. I just think it would be wise to wait until McWhorter explains before using such charged language or referring to mysterious unnamed parties acting on behalf of a Darwinist cabal.

  33. You could be right. I just think it would be wise to wait until McWhorter explains…

    By now he is surely aware of the conversation going on here at the world’s most prominent ID blog.

    My guess is that he will crawl under a bed and hope that his sins will be forgotten and forgiven by the Darwinian thought police.

    We’ll see. He would certainly be welcome here to explain it all.

  34. “I think it would be totally out of character for either one of them to be involved in something like this.”

    I alost choked on my sandwich when I read this. PZ and Dawkins trying to shut down Mcwhorter would be totally out of character for them???

    Now I am laughing so hard I m spewing food everywhere!!!

    Vivid

  35. Totally out of character for Dawkins and PZ
    http://www.vermontnewsguy.com/.....urlington/

  36. Yakky?

    Hahaha…. totally out of character for PZ and Dawkins?

    Is not PZ on record as stating he would not allow a PhD candidate or professor that gives weight to ID? Outright censorship of professional education?

    And everyone knows Richard Dawkins record of Stalinista tactics to indoctrinate children against parents. He has been at the forefront of censoring ID and all kinds of vile accusations, calling people wicked, dumb, stupid. And he is supposed to be a man teaching public understanding of science? Yet he did not attempt to reach out in kindness. Instead he spits on people verbally with abuse daily.

    It is obvious that McWhorter was immediately slammed for his reasonable discussion with Behe.

    Why else would he state the exact opposite several hours afterwards amidst the Darwinist clamour and outrage? Unless he was 1) shamed, 2) coerced, 3) threatened, or 4) intimidated by massive Darwinist uprising.

    How can anyone with common sense think McWhorter suddenly reversed and had a Simpson Doh! moment? He did it strictly out of fear.

    What a sick religious cult many darwinist live in today.

    Yakky, are you familiar with the fascist actions of the NCSE and other Darwinist at Smithsonian against Dr. Sternberg?

    Are you familiar with the NCSE’s big brother Orwellian thought police moments of telling scientist which words are allowed in scientific publications? What do you think about NCSE members telling scientist which words they can and cannot use?

    I assume you are a “liberal.” Where in the definition of liberalism does it say that other liberals, leftist and Darwinist have authority to edit out words of other scientist? They’ve become Orwell’s worst nightmare. They’ve become big brother. They’re acting like a bunch of scummy commies acted with thought minders making sure that anyone gets out of line is reported and forced to get back in line.

    It is sick and disgusting.

    Scientific Stalinistas is what this has turned into. Anyone out of line, hammer them.

    Maybe Yakky you are unfamiliar with the warfare tactics of the Darwinist, but it has gone on now for a long time.

  37. Charlie,

    Thank you for posting that article about Ben Stein.

    Richard Dawkins voted for censorship of Ben Stein…

    But according to a widely read scientific web site, UVM President Daniel Mark Fogel wrote Sunday that, “Mr. Stein will be unable to receive the honorary degree here or to serve as Commencement speaker .”

    Fogel wrote that in a letter to Richard Dawkins (pictured above), the well-known evolutionary biologist who was the most prominent of several scientists protesting the choice of Stein, an outspoken advocate of “Intelligent Design,”…”

    Get that Yakky? Richard Dawkins in favor of censoring Ben Stein. Here’s a question. Did Richard Dawkins protest anti-freedom Communist and Terrorist bomber William Ayers university invitations and speeches and tenure?

    Of course not, because Ayers is a fellow atheist brother in arms against the Christians. The so-called “wicked” people as Dawkins puts it.

    Censorship by those who claim to be liberal-minded, “freethinkers” and “brites.”

    Ben Stein in exposing the evil of people like Dawkins and other censors around our nation, has now become the target of censorship by the…. yes… Darwinian Cultist.

    Dawkins is not a freethinker, nor is PZ Meyers, nor any of the zealot cultist Darwinist. They’re close-minded bigots.

    What other group of scientist behave in such irrational and fascist like behavior? Where they work to eliminate all and any dissent from the public sphere?

    These guys are scummy people, without any ethics, dishonest and intentionally misleading to the public. They purposely spread disinformation and propaganda and constantly attack, with intent to defame character of those who challenge their god-like authority.

    They have become everything they supposedly hated in the past, due to their own hatred of anything outside of atheism. Their bitterness and anger darkens their blogs like at PZ Meyers or Pandas Thumb and Dawkins. Viscious attacks daily, weekly and in vile, false accusations, mocking, scoffing and ridicule.

    They refuse to allow decent discussions about facts. Instead they call IDist like Stephen Meyers liars.

    They fear open discussions like this getting into the public. They fear losing their own religion. They tremble at the notion that their religion is a fake cult.

    It is that simple. I’ve seen it one to many times now. It is disgusting actions by supposedly superior intellects. But I guess if you believe so vehemently in Darwinian evolutionary psychology, they cannot help themselves. They’re nothing but a pile of steaming selfish genes fighting to survive.

  38. Vivid,

    Now I am laughing so hard I m spewing food everywhere!!!

    Thanks for sharing.

    Charlie,

    http://www.vermontnewsguy.com/.....urlington/

    The two incidents are quite different, AFAICS. I really doubt that PZ or Dawkins would attempt to erase the McWhorter/Behe interview from the internet after it had occurred. I know PZ at least generally doesn’t disappear items from his blog even when he makes a mistake. I can think of a few threads here at UD that are no longer available, however.

    The University of Vermont episode was about whether a man who claims “science leads you to killing people” is a good choice to receive an honorary degree and deliver a commencement address to a class which must contain a considerable number of students majoring in, erm, the sciences. BTW, UD is a science blog, isn’t it?

  39. DATCG,

    Is not PZ on record as stating he would not allow a PhD candidate or professor that gives weight to ID? Outright censorship of professional education?

    Allow to do what? Do you have a source?

    … Stalinista …

    Nothing about the interview there…

    It is obvious that McWhorter was immediately slammed for his reasonable discussion with Behe.

    Why else would he state the exact opposite several hours afterwards amidst the Darwinist clamour and outrage? Unless he was 1) shamed, 2) coerced, 3) threatened, or 4) intimidated by massive Darwinist uprising.

    How can anyone with common sense think McWhorter suddenly reversed and had a Simpson Doh! moment? He did it strictly out of fear.

    Has anyone here tried to contact McWhorter? I’d like to hear his version of the events, even if it turns out there was a massive Darwinist uprising.

    What a sick religious cult many darwinist live in today.

    …fascist actions of the NCSE …

    … NCSE’s big brother Orwellian thought police moments …

    …They’re acting like a bunch of scummy commies acted with thought minders…

    It is sick and disgusting.

    Scientific Stalinistas …

    Again, nothing there about the Behe interview.

  40. DATCG,

    …Darwinian Cultist…

    They’re close-minded bigots.

    What other group of scientist behave in such irrational and fascist like behavior?

    These guys are scummy people, without any ethics, dishonest and intentionally misleading to the public.

    They tremble at the notion that their religion is a fake cult.

    They’re nothing but a pile of steaming selfish genes fighting to survive.

    That last line is actually quite good :D

    But seriously, I don’t agree with Dawkins on everything. He takes a harder line against religion than I do, and I think it’s sometimes unproductive. I don’t think he would attempt to have the video removed, however.

  41. Some words from McWhorter at the beginning of the video. Read this introduction carefully and ask yourself reader, does it match his total opposite response and withdrawal after the Darwinian cultist uprising?

    “Well, Michael Behe, I am so glad to meet you and thank you for agreeing to do this. This is one of the rare times that I have actually initiated a bloggingheads pairing and its because I just read your book; Edge of Evolution, from 2007 and I found it absolutely shattering. I mean this is a very important book.

    And yet I sense from the reputation or reception of your book from 10 plus years ago; Darwins Black Box, that it may be hard to get people to understand why it is so important.

    So I just wanted to go back and forth with you a little while to get a sense of what your intent with this book was and ask you a few questions and just allow this book the wide airing it deserves.

    Most readers will read the above and with common sense interpret McWhorters words as a very open dialogue who wants to encourage people to read Dr. Behe’s book.

    Just in these few paragraphs…
    “Shattering”
    “wide airing it deservs”
    “so glad to meet you”
    “rare for me to initiate blogginheads pairing”

    McWhorter is excited to speak with Behe, considers his work “shattering” and deems it worthy of “wide airing it deserves” as in he thinks it has not been given the daylight in media and science publications in a fair debate.

    He takes it upon himself to now air the books “shattering” information to the public.

    Now compare the above words to his words after the Darwinist cultist attack him…

    “John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable.”

    posted by an Administrator… hmmm. Boy that reeks of totalitarian control of opinion. How often has Putin, Fidel, Chavez recently, or any other tyrannical leaders from the past invoked the forced obligatory confession by the “guilty” party without them actually appearing in public?

    This reeks of Smithsonian style fascist tactics against a fellow academic who open-mindedly discusses a difficult topic or allows the dissenter to speak freely about his ideas about evolution.

    As a result of such bold fresh open talk, what happens?

    McWhorter suddenly repents and states that his excitement was wrong, his thoughts about the book being “shattering” truly do not represent him.

    Bada Bing, Bada Boom, welcome NCSE mind police. Darwinian shock troops.

    What a shame for science. What a shame for America and Americans in general. And how embarrasing to any scientist who dare to say this type of treatment is justified. In condemning others to silence, they condemn themselves to similar treatment.

    McWhorter asked many normal and refreshing questions. At one point he tells the story of an unidentified colleague and Darwin’s Black Box. The colleague’s reaction was to “literally throw the book across the room.”

    So much for “liberals” “freethinkers” “brites” and the “open-minded” scientist and professors.

    This shows that their beliefs have been “shattered” and in a gut, knee-jerk pavlovian response indoctrinated since elementary training classes, they are repulsed and revolted by any new information which may challenge their Darwinian religion.

    The video does not represent…”bloggingheads… usefully.” huh??? Doh! It did not compute to the selfish gene clan?

    What kind of loons post such words about an open discussion on a book?
    I’m surprised they’re not burning the books.

    Does not “represent” “usefully” whom?

    Michael Behe? Truly? LOL… is Michael Behe complaining about the interview? Where is the press release from Behe about not being represented “usefully” in this open discussion about evolution?

    I’ve seen no memo that Dr Behe feels shorted or abused in anyway, shape or form. I think since Behe’s name is included in such a ruse by the administrator, we need to hear his opinion.

    Finally, a question. Is McWhortor tenured by chance? If so and if he reads any of this. Mr. McWhorter, do not allow any beat down of your truly open and honest discussion by a rabid bunch of robots who refuse to allow dissent and open discussion of highly complex subjects. The entire idea behind America’s Constitution is protection of free speech.

    It appears the Darwinist do not believe in free speech except for themselves and are now acting like tyrants.

    Thank you sincerely John McWhorter for trying to cross the bridge, engage in reason, discuss openly the real problems of modern day science. It is refreshing to hear. I can only hope there will be many more of you in the future to be open in their inquiry for the truth. Even if the truth means we do not know everything yet.

  42. Here is the key sentence that says it all.

    “He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable.”

    Obviously there were those who found the airng objectionable thus the reason for pulling it. Now who would that be that found it so objectionable?

    Vivid

  43. Yakky D,

    LOL… well, steaming pile of selfish gene bacteria arose from a steaming vent, pond scum or what have ya.

    No one really knows, but the stories are good. Millions are spent yearly on TV about steaming piles of selfish genes.

    Its late, my poorly designed genes need rest so I may go forth and conquer other steaming piles of selfish genes tomorrow. ;)

    Whatever McWhorter says from here on out, if its not like his initial video with excitement about the book, then he is under diress.

    It is obvious a total 180 degree turnaround has been manufactured by the outrage of the Darwinist. One would have to be a blind, unguided, steaming pile of selfish genes not to see this.

    I listened to that entire video. McWhorter was excited the entire time about the discussion and the challenges that remain unanswered by Darwinist.

    Intelligent and informed experience from past episodes and in life leans towars his turnaround is not due to some moment of Dawinian nirvana.

    ps. PZ Meyers is own record on his own blog about ID professors and granting tenure. Its probably discussed on here as well. I’ll check tomorrow.

  44. I can not believe that the typical view among scientists is such that they’re not as fascinated by that question and this possible boundary to our knowledge as you are. It’s so utterly fascinating. And yet I remember when Darwin’s Black Box came out I grabbed it. I was fascinated by this. It opened my eyes. And I had a scientist friend, eminent one, I will not name them or even give their gender, but I had that scientist over to dinner and when I gave that scientist your book and said ‘Have you read this one?’ That scientists literally, and they, yes singular ‘they’ were being kind of theatrical but they, literally, threw it across the room. They just could not entertain that this book, and it was gaining a reputation, could possibly be making any sense. But of course that wasn’t a discussion — I could not get this person to discuss what was so wrong with the ideas. ~ John McWhorter

    yakky d @ 38

    I get to vote on tenure decisions at my university, and I can assure you that if someone comes up who claims that ID ‘theory’ is science, I will vote against them. ~ PZ Myers

  45. Vivid,

    Yep… that is typical politico speak easy.

  46. Bevets, thx.

  47. DATCG,

    I’m perfectly open to lots of possibilities. Of course it’s possible that McWhorter was contacted by Darwinian shock troops a scientist who critiqued his interview, and on that basis, he decided to withdraw it. Lots of things could have happened. I’d just like to hear McWhorter’s version before I lock myself in the basement and prepare for an attack by Darwin cult zombies.

  48. We have searched for an email address or phone number for McWhorter. We would like to ask him what happenned. Can anyone supply an email address?

  49. idnet,

    Here’s a link on his website:

    http://www.johnmcwhorter.com/contact

    His wikipedia page also has a link to his directory page at Columbia with another email address.

  50. yakky d,

    It’s not Darwinist cult zombies, it’s Darwinist thought police, get it right.

  51. “I’m perfectly open to lots of possibilities.”

    yakky who would find the airing of his interview with Behe objectioonable?

    “Lots of things could have happened.”

    Yakky who would find the airing of his interview with Behe objectioonable?

    “I’d just like to hear McWhorter’s version”

    Unfortunately it is very likely that we will never know. Mcwhorter ran into a shit storm he is not likely to want to go through that storm again.

    “…before I lock myself in the basement and prepare for an attack by Darwin cult zombies.”

    yakky who would find the airing of his interview with Behe objectioonable?

    Vivid

  52. oops “objectionable”

    Vivid

  53. Just to plug the updated video Post #24. In case someone missed it.

    Please let me know that is works for you. Cheers!

  54. Since wild speculation seems to be well within what’s acceptable here, may I voice my 2¢:

    Do I sense a tendency towards paranoia? I may be biased, but I sincerely believe claims about Darwinist censorship are more than a little exaggerated.

    Isn’t it a fact that we see more censorship on ID or creationist sites than on Darwinist sites?

    An example from:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....#more-8303

    Sibley wrote:

    Let’s be frank, Dawkins is in reality more dangerous than a harmless travelling charlatan

    When Skew Jones posted an almost exact ‘qoute’ of Sibley’s words except ‘Dawkins’ had been replaced with ‘Dembski’, it didn’t take long before his entry disappeared, and Skew has not been visible here since.

    So adhom against Dawkins is ok, but Dembski is protected?

    Or take a look at what the poster Daniel Smith got away with at AtBC.

    Id’ists like BA77 and others have been invited to post at AtBC, and I think they know there would be no risk of banning unless they threatened hacking the site.

    What conclusion may we draw from that? Or from my habit of saving copies of what I post here?

  55. 55
    William J. Murray

    First, McWhorter has commented and has thoroughly explained his position on the matter: listen to the interview. He spoke several times that he beleived that Behe’s book was important, needed to be discussed and that Behe’s views and arguments need a fair hearing, and he expressed both incredulity and disappointment that Darwinian evolutionists react the way they do to Behe.

    What is unclear about McWhorter’s opinion or position? Was he lying when he said that he’s felt this way for years? Was he lying throughout the discussion with Behe?

    I guess it shouldn’t shock me that Darwinians can ignore the obvious and cling to thin, imagined explanations that contradict the facts as long as such inventions allow them to keep their faith.

    Can someone answer the question? What was it about the interview that can possibly, to any reasonable person (that isn’t zealously defending the religious faith of Darwinism to the point of blatant, coercive censorship of ideas) be remotely considered “offensive”?

  56. Cabal:

    Even paranoids sometimes have enemies.

    And, there is a longstanding pattern of evidence that makes it clear — morally certain in fact — that especially the NCSE and ACLU have served as shock/ storm troopers that deploy at once to drive any ID supportive bridgeheads back into the sea.

    Using rather ruthless tactics, as can be seen for instance here. And remember, that was not for a SUPPORTER of ID, it was for someone willing to allow a place in the forum.

    For shame!

    Denial of such is enabling behaviour for thought police tactics and institutions, Cabal.

    Thanks for letting us know what you are, and what you are willing to turn a blind eye to.

    Do you see where such totalitarian, thought control censorship tactics lead, on far too many historical exemplars?

    GEM of TKI

  57. PS: Onlookers, here is Richard von Sternberg’s summary of what happened to him (go to the above link for the documentation and details, shocking details):

    ____________________

    >> In 2004, in my capacity as editor of The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, I authorized “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” by Dr. Stephen Meyer to be published in the journal after passing peer-review. Because Dr. Meyer’s article presented scientific evidence for intelligent design in biology, I faced retaliation, defamation, harassment, and a hostile work environment at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History that was designed to force me out as a Research Associate there. These actions were taken by federal government employees acting in concert with an outside advocacy group, the National Center for Science Education. Efforts were also made to get me fired from my job as a staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Subsequently, there were two federal investigations of my mistreatment, one by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel in 2005 , and the other by subcommittee staff of the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform in 2006. Both investigations unearthed clear evidence that my rights had been repeatedly violated. Because there has been so much misinformation spread about what actually happened to me, I have decided to make available the relevant documents here for those who would like to know the truth. >>
    ______________________

  58. “Because there has been so much misinformation spread about what actually happened to me, I have decided to make available the relevant documents here for those who would like to know the truth.”

    Quite like Muslims, “Taqqyia”, Darwinists are more than ready to lie and behead those who insult Darwin.

    No wonder the atheist religion prefers islam over Christianity. They have the same god.

  59. Yakka “This site is not affiliated with John McWhorter. It is a fan site and part of the Epik.com direct navigation network. To contribute content to this site, please contact us “

  60. More likely than the scenario of the Manahattan Institute telling McWhorter that its donors want him to pull the video is the scenario that some collection of McWhorter’s friends, colleagues, and book agent emailed him saying, “What on earth are you doing? You don’t want to be associated with the ID movement. You’ll be labeled as a kook, you’ll always be looked on with suspicion (remember what happened to Guillermo Gonzalez), and you’ll never get a good book review in the New York Times again.”

  61. What happened to Guillermo Gonzalez. (See what we mean about thought police tactics?)

  62. Well, so that’s John McWhorter the linguist! Linguistics should have been in the forefront of the war on materialism. Nevertheless the linguistics of the 30s and 40s was dominated by Leonard Bloomfield’s subservience to B F Skinner, a sad situation not finally overcome until Noam Chomsky’s 1957 A Review of BF Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Virtually nothing of interest can be said of human language within a purely materialist, stimulus-response model. Chomsky liberated linguistics from the constraints of materialism by granting that human language issues from a creative source for which we haven’t the foggiest of a materialist theory. Chomsky’s project was to open the field to the study of syntax—the code—universal grammar—something that had been denied modern linguists.

    Yet though Chomsky never cozied up to the Darwinists he placed himself and his linguistics on the far, far radical left. And whereas his early Transformational Grammar provided a great model for discovery and description, he was forced to abandon it because of his insistence that syntax have no inherent meaning or function. Chomsky was proposing an innate linguistic mechanism separate from general cognitive function and any higher level of semantics. Such has never been found. And so there was rebellion in the ranks and in the 70s a split between formalist and functionalist camps. And so alas! Chomsky’s linguistics, as Paul M. Postal and Robert D. Levine point out, came to resemble his politics with “a deep contempt for the truth, descents into incoherence, and verbal abuse of those who disagree with him.” A Corrupted Linguistics, in The Anti-Chomsky Reader, edited by Peter Collier & David Horowitz (Encounter Books, 2004).

    So, I would say, it remains for a future generation of linguists sympathetic to Intelligent Design to rescue the field from the radical left and an encroaching postmodernism. Here, let me suggest two areas that may be of interest to young Turks in ID.

    1. Language reflects the soul
    This was Chomsky’s original contribution—it needs to be expanded. Language is not a restricted code such as, say, the dance of the bees. Rather the average sentence is a novel creation. ID identifies design, language offers us an opportunity to peer into a source of design.

    2. Language codes information
    Language is a code in constant flux, i.e., languages are constantly changing over time (which helps to explain why there are so many languages). But this change is within bounds. The semantic and functional categories that underlie all human languages appear to be rather static, such as you might savor at WALS. The future tense, for example, always appears to derive from a verb of motion (‘go’ or ‘come’) or volition (‘will’ or ‘take/hold’)—English has innovated both: “It is going to rain” and “It will rain”.

    If you are a mathematical Platonist you will immediately sense the possibility that many of these categories are “out there” and not hard-wired in neural networks by any Darwinian process. Little children tune in to this Platonic realm as they construct language from the data at hand. This is not to say, of course, that our physical structure and environment are not reflected in our language—just that these alone are not sufficient to explain universal grammar and the ease with which children learn the same.

    If the creativity of language reflects the soul, let me suggest that semantic and functional categories reflect the spirit.

    For those who like ancient quotes, how about this mysterious biblical reference that I cannot say I understand: “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit …”

  63. Even paranoids sometimes have enemies.

    A psychiatrist to his patient: I have good news and bad news. You are not paranoid. People really are out to get you.

  64. The following from Bloggingheads might be of interest. How ironic.

    Bloggingheads is in some ways a classic expression of the Internet: the ever-dropping cost of information-processing allows people to interact in new ways, and a whole new tribe-the Bloggingheads tribe-is formed. But we hope to be in one sense an unusual expression of the Internet. Almost all blogs have a dominant ideology and a fairly homogeneous comments section to match. We pride ourselves on having a diversity of views in our diavlogs and an accordingly diverse comments section, where thoughtful disagreement is expressed in civil terms. (OK, usually thoughtful, and usually civil.) We thank our commenters-and for that matter our less-vocal viewers, and of course all the bloggingheads-for making this website a place where great minds don’t think alike.

  65. idnet,

    Yakka “This site is not affiliated with John McWhorter. It is a fan site and part of the Epik.com direct navigation network. To contribute content to this site, please contact us “

    Oops, sorry about that. Did you get the email address from Columbia?

  66. Cabal 54 supports the Darwinist cabal by denying it exists. What he doesn’t see is that no website be it Darwinist or Idist owes anyone a right to speak. It bothers me not a whit if Darwinist sites rage with Darwinist hysteria, and I do like alternative ID sites that shut them up.

    It’s only in the public square as supported by our tax dollars that the materialist cabal must be ousted.

  67. Vivid,

    yakky who would find the airing of his interview with Behe objectioonable?

    I didn’t find it objectionable. Watching the video was not the most productive 44 minutes I’ve ever spent, because there wasn’t much information there that was new to me.

    My best guess as to where the word “objectionable” came from was the criticism that appeared on the bloggingheads forum after the interview was posted. McWhorter was getting panned for asking softball questions, and people were posting links to critical reviews of Behe’s work. There’s nothing wrong with that of course—the purpose of the interview is to generate discussion.

    Again, it would be most useful if McWhorter were to come forward and tell us what happened. I hope idnet can get in contact with him.

  68. IRQ Conflict,

    Quite like Muslims, “Taqqyia”, Darwinists are more than ready to lie and behead those who insult Darwin.

    No wonder the atheist religion prefers islam over Christianity. They have the same god.

    An abundance of over-the-top rhetoric ITT.

  69. Rude @62, Wow! That needs it’s own thread! Really didn’t know that.

    @yakky @67, I wish it were. And so does Guillermo Gonzalez et al I’d wager.

    The beheading thing was not rhetorical, but proverbial.

  70. I think this about sums it up.

    bjkeefe from BHTV Wrote:

    “And finally, I think it’s better to search for explanations that work for the time being, and not worry overmuch about whether they are actually The Truth.”

    “If you’ve got a theory that explains the data and lets you make useful predictions, fine! Let’s go with that!”

    http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/.....tcount=236

    So this is progress is it? God help the next generation of Scientists.

  71. Great response Professor Behe. And I concur with your observation. Gutless.

  72. No wonder the atheist religion prefers islam over Christianity. They have the same god.

    BINGO

    absolutely right…the same dark, bloodthirsty god…

  73. Yakky D,

    “I’m perfectly open to lots of possibilities.”

    I doubt it seriously. I’ve seen your post here. And please try to recognize satire and humor. I see that you recognized at least some of it earlier. Satire is a tool to tear down the establishment. In this case, it is the Darwinist. Maybe my sarcasm is to hyperbolic for most taste.

    It is obvious that the criticism from the commenters is just one part of the issue. I had no idea far left, New York Sulzberger Slimeballs were involved, that explains another “possibility”

    I think Behe’s comments are on target. Bloggingheads reacted in shocking horror to the attention they received and pulled the video.

    I know. Here’s a good suggestion for the Darwinist. Have the Bloggingheads setup Dawkins vs Behe. Hows that for true fireworks? Would that be more “representative” of Bloggingheads video? Dawkins couldn’t handle Behe. He’d eventually end up salivating with drivel running down his mouth, mumbling, mumble, mumble about aliens seeding earth.

    Bloggingheads are not as advertised. They are politically correct leftist, or shaking and afraid of the Darwinist.

    “Of course it’s possible that McWhorter was contacted by Darwinian shock troops a scientist Thought Police who critiqued threatened his interview career, and on that basis, he decided to withdraw it. Lots of things could have happened. Abiogensis is true. I’d just like to hear McWhorter’s version mia culpa and genuflection before Darwinian gods, before I lock myself in the basement and prepare for an attack by Darwin cult zombies. smoke a joint with my dead head friends”

    I’d like to hear his version as well, but I suspect he’ll be subdued and afraid to say anything that publically supports Behe after this episode, or admit that he was slammed down by anyone he’ll name.

    I’m curious YakkyD, what do you think of the fascist at NCSE and Smithsonian that attacked Dr. Sternberg?

    What do you think of PZ Meyers bigotry against a possible tenure candidate that supports possible ID positions?

    Those are known cases of prejudice, bigotry and one-sided, double-standard hypocrites.

    What do you think about Richard Dawkins writing to a universty to cancel Ben Stein’s honorary degree?

    The evidence shows Dawkins, Meyers, NCSE, even unfortunately the Smithsonian act like fascist when their religion is found unbelievable. They censor and admit it.

  74. Lets review again one of the so-called freethinkers are in “science” today.

    Richard Dawkins… demanded Ben Stein not speak at Vermont University.

    “But according to a widely read scientific web site, UVM President Daniel Mark Fogel wrote Sunday that, “Mr. Stein will be unable to receive the honorary degree here or to serve as Commencement speaker.”

    Not only did Dawkins get Stein’s speech canceled, but his honorary degree pulled as well.

    “Fogel wrote that in a letter to Richard Dawkins (pictured above), the well-known evolutionary biologist Fascist Selfish Gene who was the most prominent of several scientists other fascist selfish genes protesting the choice of Stein, an outspoken advocate of “Intelligent Design,” scientific dissent.”

    As to holing up in your cave Yakky, you should really learn about the second amendment, freedom and liberty as our Founding Fathers intended this nation to be. Don’t live in fear. Speak up and fight for what you believe in. Understand that the government answers to We the People, that includes scientific grants awarded by tax payor moneys. We the People determine what is useful and good for our tax dollars.

    Time to stop the wasteful spending of tax dollars by hacks who tell fictional stories about a past they never observed or could possibly pretend to know.

    Better we look forward with the new scientific paradigm of Design. The country that first shifts its focus and money toward a design paradigm and away from antiquated theories will be first in line technically for the race in new business, new research, new medicine, new cures.

    This is only the beginning of things to come. Darwinisn is a failed and dying paradigm. The sooner you stop your denial and come out of the dark into the light the faster the healing begins.

    Don’t retreat into a Darwinian cave.

    The exposure of sunlight is a good disinfectant to cronyism, corruption, fascism, Owellian thought police and old-beard Darwinians.

  75. Hmmm, strikeout edit…

    “Fogel wrote that in a letter to Richard Dawkins (pictured above), the well-known evolutionary biologist Fascist Selfish Gene who was the most prominent of several scientists other fascist selfish genes protesting the choice of Stein, an outspoken advocate of “Intelligent Design,” scientific dissent.”

    There, thats better.

  76. Speculation that a Darwinist Mob leaned on Dr McWhorter seems unnecessary. Posts get deleted at UncommonDescent.com from time to time; presumably because the author decided that on balance they’d rather not have posted it, and not as a reaction to a cabal threatening their career. If even at UncommonDescent – which is surely a safe harbor from Darwinist intimidation – people sometimes remove their postings, then clearly Darwninist Men In Black are not required.
    Maybe Dr McWhorter just felt he came out the whole thing looking monumentally silly and would prefer it hadn’t happened. I’ve got no evidence for that, but neither does Dr Dembski have any evidence of sinister influences leaning on him to pull the interview.

  77. well… guess not… must I use “strike” instead of s /s

  78. lol…. preview is not well “designed” by intelligent agents. Hmmmm… maybe it’ll evolve by itself overtime.

  79. Emails sent to McWhorter via bloggingheads.tv and his fan site have not been responded to. He may be busy or he may have decided that keeping quiet will allow the whole incident to die.

  80. To bad IDnet.com.au,

    I hope he eventually feels safe to speak.

  81. Reg,

    Chuckles, you’re a hoot.

    “Maybe Dr McWhorter Darwinist just felt he came out the whole thing looking monumentally silly and would prefer it hadn’t happened.”

    Did you listen to the video at all? Did you hear or read what he said about Dr. Behe’s book?

    He is most likely being “reprogrammed” by NCSE and other Darwinist right now.

    Hey Reg,

    What you think about the fascist NCSE shutting down Dr. Sternberg after he published an ID friendly paper?

  82. The only ones looking silly today are the Darwinist and moonbats on that site that attacked him.

    Anyone notice that the Darwinist do not care about the censorhip by the other side at all? From Dawkins to PZ Meyers and the NCSE.

    But by golly, it “just appears” McWhorter got his religion back and according to Reg, “looked silly.”

    Please do tell Reg. What in that video looks silly? Care to expand on which questions or answers were silly?

  83. DATCG,

    I’ve been away today enjoying a nice late-summer day hike, so missed the new developments. First, thanks for explaining that some of your comments are in jest; I have to admit you do have a way with words.

    I don’t want to get sidetracked into the Vermont issue or PZ’s views on tenure. All I claimed was that I didn’t think it was PZ’s or Dawkins’ style to request that a video such as McWhorter’s be taken down after it had been posted.

    Now it appears McWhorter has explained the situation to Behe:

    After I found out the video was removed I emailed John McWhorter and the editor to ask for an explanation, and John emailed back that he himself requested the video to be pulled because people thought he was too easy on me, which was supposedly contrary to that old Bloggingheads spirit.

    which is more or less what some bloggers had conjectured. Of course, this is the internet, so no one (not even Behe) is going to believe McWhorter’s rather humdrum explanation. Not enough Darwinian shock troops or NCSE thought police, I guess.

    If McWhorter’s explanation is true, I think he made a pretty big mistake. Maybe he didn’t what an uproar pulling the video would cause.

  84. Correction to #83, last sentence: Maybe he didn’t realize what an uproar pulling the video would cause.

  85. For some reason this response to DATCG didn’t post after I submitted it, so I’ll try again.

    Please do tell Reg. What in that video looks silly? Care to expand on which questions or answers were silly?

    I’ve seen the first few minutes of the video and Dr McWhorter comes across as a bit of an awestruck fan-boy lavishly praising Behe’s book. And his mystification at how skunks could possibly have come to be without an Intelligence crafting their stink-squirters was funny.

    What you think about the fascist NCSE shutting down Dr. Sternberg after he published an ID friendly paper?

    I don’t much care about Dr Sternberg being let go, but I’d love to see you give some evidence that the NCSE are fascists. I’ve not noticed them herding opponents into extermination camps, wanting to implement a policy of “racial hygiene” or trying to eradicate Jews.

  86. Could someone let me know if my links work OK or not? Thanks!

  87. Well, well:

    he himself requested the video to be pulled because people thought he was too easy on me, which was supposedly contrary to that old Bloggingheads spirit.

    A civil-toned, respectful discussion on the merits that raise issues and challenges and heard out the answers was “going too easy”?

    Why wasn’t there simply a follow up panel discussion which raised the issues and moderated the exchanges to be just as civil and serious, between say Behe and PZM, with McWhorter as moderator?

    (In short, the excuses sound lamer and lamer . . . at least, to anyone who has listened to the interview. I am pretty sure that if Behe did not have his ducks in a row, he would have had a rout not an interview! [that is,t eh objection from the thought police is that Behe -- given a level playing field -- came across very well. And that will not do, Mr McWhorter, tut tut: time for brass knuckles, spiked baseball bats -- so much more useful as a club than a cricket bat -- and spike nailed boots.])

    GEM of TKI

  88. PS: Went over to Behe’s UD blog. turns out the Nelson-Numbers discussion was also on Blogginheads. And, it was a very civil and thoughtful discussion. H’m m m . . .

  89. Indeed,

    Here is Behe’s context for the remarks cited above:

    Because of the magic of the internet, it turns out that shortly after the show’s posting the comments section of the site was overrun by “bitterly virulent” (in the words of one principal in this saga) cyber bullies, some murmuring darkly about a grim future for Bloggingheads. After I found out the video was removed I emailed John McWhorter and the editor to ask for an explanation, and John emailed back that he himself requested the video to be pulled because people thought he was too easy on me, which was supposedly contrary to that old Bloggingheads spirit. I find that quite implausible (other shows on the site feature discussions between people who agree on many things). Rather, I suspect the folks at the website weren’t expecting the vitriolic reaction, began to worry about their good names and future employment prospects, pictured themselves banished to a virtual leper colony, panicked, and folded.

    Ouch!

    Shades of Sternberg!

    [Remember, Sternberg's thought crime was to have HOSTED a successfully peer reviewed pro ID article. So we see the uncivil spirit we are up against in full cry once again.]

    GEM of TKI

  90. 90
    EndoplasmicMessenger

    Speaking about Dawkins…

    it seems to be very easy to get on Dawkins’s wrong side:

    … Dawkins was typically scathing: “A clergyman in charge of education for the country’s leading scientific organisation — it’s a Monty Python sketch.”

    He said this about Michael Reiss.

    That Reiss possessed better pro-evolution credentials than most (a PhD in evolutionary biology from the University of Cambridge) counted for nothing…

    Michael Reiss was dismissed as director of education at the Royal Society, due to the misrepresentations of Dawkins and others.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....425138.ece

  91. I don’t much care about Dr Sternberg being let go, but I’d love to see you give some evidence that the NCSE are fascists.

    I’d recommend the website NCSE Exposed: No Victim-Blaming Allowed!

  92. KF,

    Ouch!

    Shades of Sternberg!

    [Remember, Sternberg's thought crime was to have HOSTED a successfully peer reviewed pro ID article. So we see the uncivil spirit we are up against in full cry once again.]

    Have you read the thread over at BloggingHeads?

    I would challenge you to do so and compare it to some of the comments in this very blog post. Do you approve of accusing “Darwinists” of “proverbial” beheadings? You’ve even referred NCSE and ACLU “shock/storm troopers” yourself in #56. And I’m not even sure what this means:

    And that will not do, Mr McWhorter, tut tut: time for brass knuckles, spiked baseball bats — so much more useful as a club than a cricket bat — and spike nailed boots.

    but it sounds as if you are accusing “Darwinists” of plotting physical violence. Not a very “civil spirit” I would say.

  93. Clarification to my post #92: I probably didn’t choose the best portion of KF’s post to quote; I’m addressing Behe’s allegation of and KF’s commentary on alleged “cyberbullies” at BloggingHeads.

  94. yakky d Wrote:

    “Do you approve of accusing “Darwinists” of “proverbial” beheadings?”

    Would you have taken offense if I had said ‘they gave him the axe’?

  95. Is there any way we can confirm that Yakky’s actually pro-ID?

    Yakky it was a brilliant scheme to pose as a darwinist with underhanded softball after softball, and striking out each time when you’re up to bat.

    But it’s getting played out. Conspiracy after conspiracy is unearthed and confirmed, making your clever ruse too obvious.

    Come on back over to our side with your other username bro, well done.

  96. IRQ Conflict,

    Quite like Muslims, “Taqqyia”, Darwinists are more than ready to lie and behead give the axe to those who insult Darwin.

    No wonder the atheist religion prefers islam over Christianity. They have the same god.

    It’s a bit less graphic, but still needs improvement IMHO :D

    On a more serious note, while I’m not a big fan of Islam, I do have a lot of respect for many of the Muslims I have gotten to know over the years. There’s no need to make these insulting stereotypical statements to support the case for ID.

    lamarck,

    Is there any way we can confirm that Yakky’s actually pro-ID?

    Yakky it was a brilliant scheme to pose as a darwinist with underhanded softball after softball, and striking out each time when you’re up to bat.

    So I’m a double-secret-reverse deep cover sock? Interesting hypothesis! :D

  97. yakky d,

    There are decent people that have been raised as Muslims yes. But by far they are the minority. Why do you think it is that the so-called ‘moderate’ Muslims rarely if ever cry out at the atrocities committed by adherents to Islam? It’s not rocket science.

    There are things you need to know about true Islam. Here’s but the latest sampling: http://www.americanthinker.com.....rifqa.html

    2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
    2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

  98. IRQ Conflict,

    There are decent people that have been raised as Muslims yes. But by far they are the minority.

    When you say decent Muslims are by far in the minority, about what percentage are you talking about? Give me a rough estimate.

    Also, to what extent are your views about Muslims determined through person-to-person interaction rather than reports from the media? Do you have many Muslim friends or coworkers?

  99. IRQ,

    I have been to muslim countries.

    Muslims by far are very decent people.

    It is only the very few who do bad things.

    Why don’t the moderates speak out?

    Two reasons that I can see:

    1- They do not want to die

    2- It is up to Allah to judge and punish.

    But anyway if there are 100 million muslims and 1% are “bad” people, that makes 1 million.

    1 million is 1000 people in 1000 cities.

    Sure that seems like a lot but in context it isn’t.

    Now look at Christians- they fight each other. And they form groups that don’t like different skin colors.

    BTW Islam, Christianity and Judaism trace back to Abraham- IOW they all worship the same “God”.

  100. 100

    No more discussion about Muslims.

  101. 101

    Sorry Clive. Didn’t see you post till after I made mine.

  102. 102

    Heh, BHTV doesn’t want to look biased/bad. Too late. But I’m still glad they re-posted it. It’s really the honorable thing to do.

  103. IRQ Conflict 102: I joined the discussion late, but restoring the link was indeed the honourable thing to do, and good for Bloggingheads!

    A strict Bloggingheads policy of not removing vlogs is wise because it protects all parties.

    One party may be under pressure from various sources to demand the removal of the vlog – but that creates the impression that he believes he has lost a debate.

    How does that help him?

    Also, there is no clear way for his supporters to defend his position.

    Various parties may have archived the vlog, but discussion then becomes a huge mess, as there is no one single official Bloggingheads link that we reasonably believe no one has tampered with.

  104. YakkyD

    You need to read the material Sternberg has at the linked.

    Then, think very, very carefully about where institutional science, government, law enforcement and the civlisation are headed on this track.

    (Perhaps a glance at this book may help.)

    GEM of TKI

Leave a Reply