Home » Intelligent Design » Conspiracy as a Way of Life

Conspiracy as a Way of Life

36 ID critics were asked to answer the question below the fold. Within 27 minutes of receiving the poll Wesley Elsberry contacted everyone he thought might’ve received the poll advising them how to answer it. Wesley, for those of you who don’t know, is a prominent member of the National Center for Selling Evolution Science Education. The NCSE is an organization the U.S. Office of Special Counsel says conspired with the Smithsonian Institution to discredit Rick Sternberg in response to Sternberg allowing an ID sympathetic paper to be published in a biology journal connected with the Smithsonian.

Question:

A. Both creationism and intelligent design require one to have a particular interpretation of the Biblical creation account.

B. Both creationism and intelligent design require one to accept a particular age of the Earth and of the universe.

C. Both creationism and intelligent design require one to reject evolution.

D. Both creationism and intelligent design identify the Christian God as the creator.

E. Both creationism and intelligent design hold that there is an intelligence behind certain features of nature.

F. There are no points of similarity between creationism and intelligent design.

G. None of the above options accurately describe the relationship between creationism and intelligent design.

(Please check all that apply.)

Go to Telic Thoughts, the originator of the poll, for the whole story…

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

12 Responses to Conspiracy as a Way of Life

  1. How else do you expect the Borg to react? It IS a collective after all…

    Krause should have added a qualifier to G. (G is how the poll was ordered to be answered) :

    In your words please describe the relationship between ID and Creation.

    IMHO E appears to be the best of the choices given…

  2. “IMHO E appears to be the best of the choices given…”

    Undoubtedly all informed honest people will agree that E is the right answer. It doesn’t appear there were any people who could be characterized that way on the mailing list. :-(

  3. “Undoubtedly all informed honest people will agree that E is the right answer. It doesn’t appear there were any people who could be characterized that way on the mailing list.” DS

    If you asked the people on the mailing list, after they were given the answer, they would tell you that they are informed and honest. Seriously- ID critics and anti-IDists know much more about ID than the people who put it together- just ask them.

  4. Wow! I didn’t even know about that letter from the OSC. It looks like they’ve discovered some juicy stuff!

    About the answer choices, I agree that E is the best of the ones given. If one holds that an instance of IC and/or CSI actually exists in some part of nature, then to explain its cause, that person must (as far as I can tell) assert that some form of intelligence is most likely. However, it is possible to acknowledge that ID is a valid, objective form of reasoning which makes testable claims and still believe that unintelligent evolution adequately explains all of life. I think this would accurately describe Steve Fuller.

    BTW, I found out about the Fuller article in the “In the News” section of ARN. While I was there, I also found something that I’m sure Dave will want to add to his birthday or Christmas wishlist! :)

  5. I am not allowed to even view ARN and haven’t been for months. If my name is ever mentioned over there I would appreciate being notified about it so I can respond on my blog.

  6. E.

  7. Many years ago, at a used book sale, I acquired a short textbook called Survey Research Methods by F. J. Fowler. It was brief and somewhat dated, but it was eye-opening in explaining all the things one must consider in order for one’s survey to return useful information. Since that book was first published, the web has made the sending of surveys much easier, but designing them is as difficult as ever. Worse, the designers themselves often seem oblivious to the problems with their surveys.

    The survey above is one of the faulty ones. One problem is that ID and creationism are not conscious entities which are able to “require” one to do anything. And then, the survey disregards the simple fact that ID and creationism are held by people with many diverse views. We are forced to guess what survey designers intended by their questions, and as we know, one cannot infer the intent of the designer from the design. So, should I interpret the questions as asking about the prevalent views held within the respective communities and answer C,D,E, and G, or should I interpret them to refer to views held absolutely by all members, and answer only G, or should I use some other interpretation entirely?

    There are other more minor problems with the question, too. I notice on Amazon that Fowler has a fairly recent edition of his book out. The folks at Telic Thoughts might benefit from it. I won’t comment on motives, but in disrupting the survey in its present form, Wesley Elsberry did them a favor.

    Did you read the entire letter that accompanied the survey? -ds

  8. Scrivner

    Every honest person who understands what ID and creationism is immediately chose E.

    The survey was perfect in its intended purpose. It caused the recipients to have an opportunity to be honest and instead they chose another path because honesty would not have furthered their agenda. Anything they did other than swallow their pride and return the survey with the correct answer served to reveal what they are. Wesley Elsberry talks all about lying scum here but in reality he need look no farther than his mirror to find the lying scum.

    So there.

    And don’t bother responding as I’ve decided you don’t fit in here.

  9. Esley Welsberry has earned my contempt as is perfectly obvious from his new identity. I have done the same with Dichard Rawkins, Mernst Ayr, Gephen J. Stould, Pott L. Scage, M.P. Zeyers, Pilliam Wrovine and anyone else I feel like degrading at any particular moment in time. I find it to be very relaxing. Is that clear?

  10. Esley Welsberry has earned my undying contempt as expressed in my subtle modification of his given name just as have Dichard Rawkins, Mernst Ayr, Ghephen J. Stould, Pilliam Wrovine, M.P. Zeyers, Richael Muse and Pott L. Scage in no particulaf order. Got that? Write that down.

    “thankyouverymuch.”
    Elvis the pelvis Presley

  11. If you are not going to let me express my feelings toward Darwinian nincompoops just let me know and I’ll find another forum. This was my second attempt to communicate my heartfelt sentiments.

    It seems it is perfectly acceptable for DaveScot to call Esley Welsberry a lying scum but I am not allowed a much more benign characterization of the same lying scum. That sucks and is unacceptable. Got that? Write that down too!

    Now do me a favor and post my last comment please or don’t. The choice is yours.

    Professor Davison, “pill” in “Pilliam Provine” triggered our spam filter and flagged your comments for review. We get hundreds upon hundreds of advertisements soliciting the purchase of vitamin pills, diet pills, viagra pills, and the like being posted comments. We have software that watches for keywords and flags suspected comments for review by a human to see if it is really an unwanted advertisement or not. I recovered your comments and let them through. -ds

  12. thankyouverymuch (spoken very rapidly)
    Elvis (the pelvis) Presley

    Incidentally it was not Pilliam Provine It was Pilliam Wrovine, thank you.

Leave a Reply