Was Terrell talking about public school instruction?
1 Like
My point was that as hollow as I.D. might be, it might get a more open-minded hearing if ID supporters were to convincingly disavow any goal related to public schools.
1 Like
To be equally blunt, you never should have brought up this example. For all we can tell, it might be made up fiction. If you are going to cut off discussion with “So you don’t know how the conversations went,” then you should not have started the discussion.
3 Likes
Behe isn’t doing research.
He has a hypothesis that would motivate a normal scientist to assay the activity of ApoB variants from polar bears.
2 Likes
From the Five-year objectives of the Wedge Document:
“Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory”
2 Likes
I wasn’t cutting off discussion on the issue I was talking about. I was simply informing you that I had already done exactly what you said I needed to do. You are still free give me your own personal ideas about God’s relationship to the evolutionary process, and you won’t find me cutting you off, but your speculations about what the BioLogos people might have meant (when you don’t appear to have followed the conversations there extensively), and about what I probably failed to do in questioning with the BioLogos people, are useless, because they are based on guesswork on your part, and your suggestion that I might be fabricating events and conversations is not at all appreciated. I invested hundreds of hours, if not thousands, trying to find out what the TE/EC leaders assert, and why, and I don’t appreciate someone who has not made that kind of time investment suggesting either that I didn’t conduct my investigation properly or that I’m making it all up.
The Wedge document is not DI policy. It is outdated by many years. The suggestion that design theory should be included was already dropped long before the Dover trial. Discovery policy for 15 years or more has been that ID should not be mandated in school curricula.
That you have you to keep resorting to this outdated document shows how intellectually desperate you are.
1 Like
Do you make DI policy?
1 Like
No, but I record it when it’s announced. And the Discovery policy against mandatory ID instruction in science class was announced well before the Dover trial, and has been maintained consistently ever since.
Anyhow, I would direct you to the title of this column. It concerns Peaceful Science, not Discovery, and it’s about arguments for the existence of God, not the Wedge Document. You are once again doing what you so frequently do – trying to turn a discussion about something else into another excuse for launching an attack on ID and the DI. That seems to be your main reason for participating on PS – to engage in ID-bashing. At least, that’s the most natural conclusion from the fact that it’s the main thing you do here.
1 Like
The way the DI is knee-jerk defended I’d bet the farm someone is getting a commission. 
1 Like
If you have evidence for this, you should bring it forward. Otherwise just withdraw the comment.
1 Like
Just read all the comments knee-jerk defending the DI, like the one immediately above.
1 Like
Sorry, but the idea that someone hiding behind a pseudonym is the arbiter of DI policy is absurd.
Maybe you should consider not rambling on for pages. I’m only responding to an entire paragraph that you wrote; you changed the subject.
1 Like
Nope.
That is completely erroneous. Discovery is dancing with semantics.
They EXIST for the politics… not for the science.
2 Likes
The way ID and the DI are knee-jerk attacked on this site on virtually every single thread, no matter what the topic of the thread is supposed to be, I’d bet the farm that a good number of people are participating here exclusively or mainly to bash ID, not because they have any genuine interest in theology-science dialogue.
Why shouldn’t ID and the DI be attacked? ID has proven to be nothing but religiously motivated pseudoscience garbage while the DI is merely a religiously motivated propaganda organization trying to push that pseudoscience garbage back into U.S. public schools. Now the DI has admitted what science already knew, that the DI has been flat out lying for two decades about their religious motives for starting the ID movement. Must make you feel great to champion an organization which has been continually lying about science and trying to undercut science education is the U.S. all this time.
What was that Commandment again about not bearing false witness?
2 Likes
I said that I recorded the policy, not that I was the arbiter of it. Perhaps you do not know the meaning of the English word “arbiter.”
You’re off-topic. Read the title of this discussion again. Why do you regularly avoid discussing religious and theological questions and always bring every discussion, no matter what it starts out as, back to the subject of ID?
LOL! You’re the one who raised the topic of ID and the DI. 
1 Like
You’re off topic.
arbiter [ahr-bi-ter] noun
- a person empowered to decide matters at issue; judge; umpire.
- a person who has the sole or absolute power of judging or determining.
I think I’m just fine with my usage, but thanks for your concern.
You clearly are claiming that your judgement is authoritative regarding the actual DI policy: whether it is the one that they lied to conceal then admitted was theirs (Wedge), or whether it is the one they currently claim to be their policy.
Can you try harder to prevent topics from turning into your pedantic claims of superiority over others and your lame credentialism, in which merely having a PhD represents some sort of pinnacle of achievement, and accomplishments after the PhD don’t seem to be relevant?
Hey! On the topic of credentialism, does physician Michael Egnor have any theological expertise in your view? His essay is featured on the DI site.