You make a good point in that it is difficult to characterize Tour’s relationship with ID. Same is probably true with me. I did after all go public defending @aguager and Richard Buggs this last year. I certainly do not dismiss ID arguments on the genetic fallacy, but because of real scientific errors I see.
Jim, by the way, is a good friend of mine, and I certainly do not want to mischaracterize him. Most people I know in the ID movement consider him ID “associated.” This is likely because he is very connected to their community, and often makes argument about OOL that they like (though you seem to be misrepresenting his position). Probably the reason he is most known to be ID associated (not a proponent) is because he signed the Dissent From Darwinism, and has declined to this day to remove his name from this. He has paid some real costs to keep his name there, so it does seem to be something he is committed too.
I still find his work really helpful, and enjoy his friendship. He is “associated” somehow with ID, though I’m not sure the right way to describe it. Any help here @pnelson? Or @bjmiller? Or @CaseyLuskin? What is the right way to describe Tour’s relationship with you guys?
This is a more reasonable position. When I hear someone is associated with a group, I tend to think that they either work there or are on the board or advise them or write material for them or support them financially. I don’t think James Tour does any of those things for Discovery Institute.
Perhaps it would be better to just say that James has signed the Dissent From Darwinism document produced by Discovery Institute and let it go at that.
Reminds me of Ron Swanson’s association with being head of the Parks and Rec Department.
Ron-swanson-parties.jpg
Okay; maybe James Tour is a little less hostile to ID than that… : )
Please understand we are not your enemy. We have much more common than you know. We are up for a real conversation, but there has to be a give and take. You have to take the understand us before you disagree.
