Heartfelt thanks for that.
That’s fair. In fact I did notice where John made a correction and I probably should have mentioned it. I suppose it was the best immediate example I could find of the problem I was trying to address, and it seemed all the more relevant since I was addressing him specifically.
I would like to think that if John knew what people like me really thought of him he would soften his rhetoric a bit. My wife asked me why I get so nervous posting here and responding to people like John (or you and others here), and I told her, “These guys are not just exceptionally intelligent, they know so much more than I do that a lot of times it’s downright intimidating.” And of course reading insulting rhetoric, likening me to a third-grader for example, only makes that feeling worse.
I can’t verify one way or the other, but suppose you’re right and they don’t own up to errors the way they should. I think it’s possible such failure is a symptom of the very problem under discussion; that is, maybe they think that if they do acknowledge errors (especially errors affecting their central argument) a sizeable segment of the scientific community, here and elsewhere, will ridicule them and show them no mercy. I honestly don’t know. From what I understand, though, the whole idea of Peaceful Science was to have a place where that would not happen.
But I agree that examples of them publicly self-correcting would be helpful, and in fact I hope some of them are following this conversation. If I may: Scripture says “Confess your sins to one another…that you may be healed.” Maybe acknowledging error, or even explaining why it’s so difficult to do so in the context of public evolution debates, would help heal the breach. In any case, I personally would love to see some of the more familiar ID people come back to the forum and participate the way they once did.
I would say that’s great advice, and well stated.
It’s worth plenty, thank you. And you’ll notice I’m not exactly averse to long responses. 