Who is Against Politeness and Respect?

Who could take offense at this?

We believe that vigorous debate is clearly of the essence in intellectual communities, and that even strong disagreements can be an engine of progress. However, tone and prose should follow the usual academic standards of politeness and respect in phrasing. We recognize that these are not consistently met in this particular issue. These standards, especially toward people we deeply disagree with, are a common benefit to us all. We regret any deviation from our usual standards.

For the answer, check out this post, from the Evo News blog:

What Can We Learn From the Behavior of the Darwin Lobby

We can learn some things from this episode about NCSE / Darwin lobby behavior.

First, we now know that Branch and the NCSE would take issue with those who publish statements that uphold "the usual academic standards of politeness and respect."

Second, we can see the intolerant mindset of folks like Wilkins, who feel that if Synthese publishes a statement upholding civility, as well as one paper that critiques Barbara Forrest, then means they "bow to intelligent design pressure." This is incredible: Beckwith's piece wasn't even arguing for ID--it was simply responding to Forrest's fallacious attacks on him and the ID movement. But Wilkins' post shows how intolerant Darwin lobbyists are of ID proponents in the academy.

Third, we see that the NCSE / Darwin lobby feel they must enforce a rule where the academic orthodoxy doesn't critique their own kind when it comes to evolution. The NCSE / Darwin lobby is so intolerant of criticism from their own kind that they are blacklisting people or groups who disagree with their methods. When that happens, they go after people personally.

Alex Wilhelm Debates Karl Giberson, And Forgets His Name

What is funnier than a Huffington Post article by a theistic evolutionist insisting that ID is not dead? Answer: A Huffington Post article insisting that ID is dead, where the writer forgets the name of the other author halfway through.

Karl Giberson becomes "Ginsberg" part way through Alex Wilhlem's article.

To his credit, Giberson's efforts to show why ID is still alive and well are admirable. Having said that, I can think of a hundred other reasons why ID is alive and well.

HT: Evo News blog.

My Favorite Posts, Vol. 2

Here is Volume 2 of My Favorite Posts. Volume 1 can be found here.

Science? Religion? Philosophy?
Explores the question whether intelligent design and macroevolutionary theory are science, religion or philosophy, and examines the relationship to each field of inquiry.

Polls on Evolution and Education
Links to several public opinion polls regarding attitudes towards the issues, including showing overwhelming public support for teaching the scientific evidence for and against Darwinian theory.

ACLU, Kitzmiller and Banned Books Week
I explore the irony of the ACLU filing a lawsuit during Banned Books Week that seeks in part to ban a book from science classrooms.


I will be adding to this post over time.

Links to Background Posts

If you would like to read more, but don't feel like randomly clicking through archives, you can find a summary of some of my favorite previous posts, with links, here. These posts also give you a good idea of what this blog is all about.

For a discussion of what Darwinian Fundamentalism is, go here.

For a post with links regarding Challenges to Macroevolutionary Theory, go here.

For a post with links to other blogs that deal with the issues of evolution and intelligent design either from a position of skepticism toward macroevolutionary theory or open-mindedness toward intelligent design, or both, go here.