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

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

“thankyouverymuch.”
Elvis the pelvis Presley

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.

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

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!

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.