Thursday, May 19, 2005

Interesting Weblog on Intelligent Design

There is a new ID blog out there without any of the usual suspects. Looks like an eclectic mix of younger guys (at least one agnostic) and seems pretty stimulating. What really strikes me as interesting is that the standard group of anti-ID fans/roadies run around making comments even at this new website. Whenever I've written the slightest kind thing about ID or anything critical about the neo-Darwinian synthesis, I get a load of email from these same fellows.

Anyway, check out Telic Thoughts. (Telic means purposeful.)

11 comments:

Tlaloc said...

"Whenever I've written the slightest kind thing about ID or anything critical about the neo-Darwinian synthesis, I get a load of email from these same fellows."

Isn't it odd when people get annoyed that someone tries to interject a touchy feely philosophy into hard science? Almost as if some people wanted to keep science free of special interest manipulations. Doesn't that just suck?

Tlaloc said...

Having looked over the site I can't say I'm impressed. They do find some interesting articles but that seems to be the sum total of their contribution as their own comments on the articles are either meaningless fluff or strangely self defeating. Read this article:

http://telicthoughts.com/?p=86

The article quotes a source that is a great support for evolution and yet the author treats it as if it supported ID. Um Hello! You're the ones arguing AGAINST evolution. Try to keep your position straight, okay?

Tlaloc said...

Apparently tampering with evolution really is just the first step. read here how the religious right doesn't want medical science preventing HPV:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/19/opinion/main696613.shtml

I'd LOVE to hear the reform clubber explanation for why spreading disease for Jesus is a good thing.

Tlaloc said...

the silence is deafening.

Krauze said...

Hi Tlaloc,

"The article quotes a source that is a great support for evolution and yet the author treats it as if it supported ID. Um Hello! You're the ones arguing AGAINST evolution."

No, he's not. Mike Gene, the author of that article, is an evolutionist.

Tlaloc said...

"No, he's not. Mike Gene, the author of that article, is an evolutionist. "

Sorry on rereading I see I used the word "author" which is understandably misleading. I meant the author of the comments in the post about the article, not the author of the original article. My bad.

Krauze said...

Hi Tlaloc,

"I meant the author of the comments in the post about the article, not the author of the original article."

Guts? He's also an evolutionist.

Krauze
http://www.telicthoughts.com/

Tlaloc said...

"Guts? He's also an evolutionist."

So was Hunter wrong when he touted the site as a weblog for ID? Or is this guy the token scientist? Actually do I even care? Not really.

Krauze said...

Hi Tlaloc,

"So was Hunter wrong when he touted the site as a weblog for ID?"

No. Evolution isn't the sole property of the non-teleological approach.

"Actually do I even care? Not really."

Yet you chose to point to a particular post, trying to make an issue out of which side of the "fence" the author was arguing.

Tlaloc said...

"No. Evolution isn't the sole property of the non-teleological approach."

That really doesn't answer my question.


"Yet you chose to point to a particular post, trying to make an issue out of which side of the "fence" the author was arguing."

Well no not really, what I tried to point out was that for a site promoted as supporting ID they didn't seem to really keep which side they were on straight. However if Hunter was mistaken and the site isn't in support of ID then the discussion is moot. If Hunter was right then I feel I adequately showed that at least one contributor is hopelessly confused about the issue. Either way it seems like the discussion is done, hence: I don't care.

Krauze said...

Hi Tlaloc,

"That really doesn't answer my question."

Yes, it does. You asked if Hunter was mistaken when he characterized Telic Thoughts as an ID blog, and I explained that he wasn't. I then expanded on my answer, pointing out that non-ID theories aren't the only ones that can incorporate evolution.

You seem to be the only one who's confused.