A2: Is ID About Public School Science Curriculums? Yes and No.
You say “per se”, which means “itself” or the “essensee of,” but this is a hard way to put it. ID is complex a movement, that ID “per se” is different for different people. Notice the distinction you draw yourself between the ID political movement (IDM) and ID theory (IDT):
Many ID proponents are heavily involved in public school science debates, and Discovery as an organization has been involved in such disputes.
ID as such is a theoretical position on the causes of biological (and cosmic) order, not a political movement.
I would insist that both sides of ID, both IDM and IDT, are legitimate topics of discussion.
Fixing the Dialogue
I would also observe that two types of interference, and one silly argument, can really anger people…
- When someone is positively discussing ideas from IDT, someone might throw the bomb of the political IDM into the ring to distract from real exchange. This frustrates ID proponents, including you.
I imagine you would usually be on the side of the frustrated here. I agree that this is not fair. and it is not helpful. It is off topic and should be flagged accordingly.
- When someone is discussing their negative feelings about IDM, someone might feel that important points of IDT are being too quickly dismissed, and interject that the IDM is not the real ID, but IDT is the real ID. This is very frustrating to people, because makes them feel unheard, and distracts from legitimate points about IDM. I think
I imagine you would usually be on the side of the interjector here. I would suggest that basic courtesy is to give people the same respect you want from them when discussing IDT. When discussing IDM, it is not okay to derail the conversation by arguing to take IDT seriously. This should just be kept separate, so interjections like this should be marked off topic and deleted.
- Arguing about what the “true” or “per se” or “essence” of ID is? That is an unhelpful argument, and subjective. This is a pointless argument. You think ID is essentially IDT, while others think ID is essentially the IDM.
I suggest we just avoid this argument entirely, and I suggest no one take issue with others explaining their view. Usually it is 100% clear from context what ID people are discussing, but I imagine a lot of conflict could be avoided by just asking people: Do you mean ID the movement or the theory?
Do you agree with this management plan? If so, I think it could go a long way to avoiding many annoying circular conversations for everyone, including you. Notice also that this means adjusting your language a small amount. What do you think?