Anti-ID group (IDCAB) begins again?, Can't tell you how much I missed that friendly bunch. Options

[Sxeptomaniac]

I had really hoped they'd keep themselves under control after FeloniousMonk's desysopping a while back, but they appear to be back at it again.

Cla68 seems to have stirred them up by trying to add a "Scientific theories" category to the Intelligent Design article. Don't think it was a really good idea, but it doesn't justify the reaction.

Now Hrafn has decided to tag various articles as being Creationism stubs, including James Tour, a guy who has specifically said that he's not an intelligent design supporter. He signed a petition, so therefore he's a creationist, even if he says otherwise, right? Never mind that he's done nothing else related to creationism, and all indicators are that he never will. Now Guettarda's gaming to try to keep the tag in (since when is the burden of evidence on the one removing material from a BLP?).

I really did not want to get involved with these people again, but I'm not letting them go back to messing with BLPs like they did in the past.

This post has been edited by Sxeptomaniac:

[Cla68]

I had really hoped they'd keep themselves under control after FeloniousMonk's desysopping a while back, but they appear to be back at it again.

Cla68 seems to have stirred them up by trying to add a "Scientific theories" category to the Intelligent Design article. Don't think it was a really good idea, but it doesn't justify the reaction.

Now Hrafn has decided to tag various articles as being Creationism stubs, including James Tour, a guy who has specifically said that he's not an intelligent design supporter. He signed a petition, so therefore he's a creationist, even if he says otherwise, right? Never mind that he's done nothing else related to creationism, and all indicators are that he never will. Now Guettarda's gaming to try to keep the tag in (since when is the burden of evidence on the one removing material from a BLP?).

I really did not want to get involved with these people again, but I'm not letting them go back to messing with BLPs like they did in the past.

It seems that they haven't given up trying to tar and feather everyone who signed that petition. Is Hrafn OrangeMarlin or Jim62sch reincarnated? His insulting, bullying attitude and insufferable POV pushing is just like how those other two editors acted around the ID articles when they were editing.

[NuclearWarfare]

Cla, do you honestly think that intelligent design is a scientific theory?

[Doc glasgow]

Cla, do you honestly think that intelligent design is a scientific theory?

It is a theory, and it relates to science. Define science?

[Sarcasticidealist]

It is a theory, and it relates to science. Define science?

By normal definition, a scientific theory is one that has emerged through the scientific method, broadly defined (evolution generally defies controlled hypothesis testing, but there can be more to science than that). Intelligent design is no such thing.

Of course, people might take the approach that you do, and adopt a widely used colloquial definition of "theory". But if you take that definition of "theory", isn't "scientific theory" redundant? Can you think of a "theory" under that definition that doesn't relate to science?

In the interests of clarity and in having words mean something, the definition of "theory" used within the scientific community is clearly the best one.

[taiwopanfob]

In the interests of clarity and in having words mean something, the definition of "theory" used within the scientific community is clearly the best one.

Then a theory is something that makes a prediction. You have phlogiston theory and relativity theory.

The central issue of science is coming up with theories and then either finding support for or against them.

Hence adjectives like "discredited" when referring to some theories, and "well supported" when commenting on others.

[RMHED]

In the interests of clarity and in having words mean something, the definition of "theory" used within the scientific community is clearly the best one.

Now that smacks of protectionism and self interest. Yeah lets allow the scientists to define what is scientific.

Why not also allow the clergy to define what is religious?

[Sarcasticidealist]

Why not also allow the clergy to define what is religious?

If they're (that is, clergy from all religions) prepared to agree upon a clear definition that can be applied with approximate uniformity and which approximately matches the sense in which the word is already commonly used (to avoid confusion), that's fine with me.

But comparing the clergy to scientists is also somewhat misleading, since the first is defined by a set of beliefs, and the second by a methodology. If a Lutheran pastor concludes through study that, for example, there is no God, then he very quickly ceases to be a Lutheran pastor, regardless of the methodology that led him to that conclusion. If a scientist concludes through study that, for example, the standard atomic model is incorrect, she is still a scientist, provided that she applied scientific methodology in reaching that conclusion.

[Doc glasgow]

In the interests of clarity and in having words mean something, the definition of "theory" used within the scientific community is clearly the best one.

Now that smacks of protectionism and self interest. Yeah lets allow the scientists to define what is scientific.

Why not also allow the clergy to define what is religious?

It is worse than that. Scientists defining what is scientific is one thing, but what happens here is that some scientists define scientific, and then that controls who gets defined as a scientist and what gets defined as science. It is the last bastion of naive modernism.

The equivalent would be me saying Mormons aren't Christians, because all true Christians agree Mormons aren't Christians. QED

[Cla68]

In the interests of clarity and in having words mean something, the definition of "theory" used within the scientific community is clearly the best one.

Now that smacks of protectionism and self interest. Yeah lets allow the scientists to define what is scientific.

Why not also allow the clergy to define what is religious?

Yes, it's not up to Wikipedia to decide what is and isn't a scientific theory. Also, I thought the assignation of categories in Wikipedia was not a content judgment. In other words, if "Enneagram of Personality" is assigned to the "Pseudoscience" category, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia is saying that it is a Pseudoscience, only that one or more of the sources are claiming that. If so, then the same thing should be true for Intelligent Design as a scientific theory, because some people, as reported in the sources, claim that it is. I notice that some of the "Science" editors are very quick to cast aspersions of quackery on theories they don't approve of, but very resistant to those theories being classified in opposite terms even if there are reliable sources showing that some people do consider them to be scientific theories.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[RMHED]

But comparing the clergy to scientists is also somewhat misleading, since the first is defined by a set of beliefs, and the second by a methodology. If a Lutheran pastor concludes through study that, for example, there is no God, then he very quickly ceases to be a Lutheran pastor, regardless of the methodology that led him to that conclusion.

Nah, that's just another religious schism. Just replace God with aliens = New Religion.

If a scientist concludes through study that, for example, the standard atomic model is incorrect, she is still a scientist, provided that she applied scientific methodology in reaching that conclusion.

Who determines the methodology, oh yeah other scientists! Hardly a level playing field.

[Sarcasticidealist]

It is worse than that. Scientists defining what is scientific is one thing, but what happens here is that some scientists define scientific, and then that controls who gets defined as a scientist and what gets defined as science.

In the abstract, virtually all scientists would agree on what constitutes a science, with perhaps minor distinctions. Scientists may apply that definition in different ways, but at least they have a common framework by which to argue the question. Look at this business about vaccinations causing autism: the idea is roundly rejected by virtually all scientists, and defended by a tiny minority. But there is agreement on all sides about what criteria the idea must meet in order to be considered "scientific".

Of course, scientists, like the rest of humanity, are fallible, prejudiced, and at times intellectually dishonest. For that reason, they can refuse to accept as scientific theories and fields that are, by their own definition, scientific. But that is not an argument against the "scientific" definition of science.

Who determines the methodology, oh yeah other scientists! Hardly a level playing field.

It is a peculiar egalitarianism that demands that scientists and non-scientists be placed on a "level playing field" on scientific questions.

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist:

[Milton Roe]

Cla, do you honestly think that intelligent design is a scientific theory?

It is a theory, and it relates to science. Define science?

See science. Yes, it may be Wikipedia, but it's as good a definition of the word as you'll find.

And yes, sciences are predictive. Even in the broadest senses of the word.

[RMHED]

And yes, sciences are predictive. Even in the broadest senses of the word.

Only because they've narrowed down the answers to ones that agree with their cosy consensus.

[Doc glasgow]

It is worse than that. Scientists defining what is scientific is one thing, but what happens here is that some scientists define scientific, and then that controls who gets defined as a scientist and what gets defined as science.

In the abstract, virtually all scientists would agree on what constitutes a science, with perhaps minor distinctions. Scientists may apply that definition in different ways, but at least they have a common framework by which to argue the question. Look at this business about vaccinations causing autism: the idea is roundly rejected by virtually all scientists, and defended by a tiny minority. But there is agreement on all sides about what criteria the idea must meet in order to be considered "scientific".

That's circular. To my mind Intelligent Design is certainly a scientific theory, just as much as evolution is. Both try to make sense of the data available. Of course, either may be completely wrong. There are many scientific theories which over the years have been discredited or abandoned.

[Sarcasticidealist]

That's circular. To my mind Intelligent Design is certainly a scientific theory, just as much as evolution is. Both try to make sense of the data available.

Darwin's theory is predictive, and falsifiable (at least in principle - as I said earlier, it does defy controlled attempts at nullification, since it's difficult to "evolve" organisms in a lab or over a reasonable period of time). The "theory" of intelligent design is neither.

There are many scientific theories which over the years have been discredited or abandoned.

Yes - always using the same methodological framework.

[RMHED]

It is worse than that. Scientists defining what is scientific is one thing, but what happens here is that some scientists define scientific, and then that controls who gets defined as a scientist and what gets defined as science.

In the abstract, virtually all scientists would agree on what constitutes a science, with perhaps minor distinctions. Scientists may apply that definition in different ways, but at least they have a common framework by which to argue the question. Look at this business about vaccinations causing autism: the idea is roundly rejected by virtually all scientists, and defended by a tiny minority. But there is agreement on all sides about what criteria the idea must meet in order to be considered "scientific".

That's circular. To my mind Intelligent Design is certainly a scientific theory, just as much as evolution is. Both try to make sense of the data available. Of course, either may be completely wrong. There are many scientific theories which over the years have been discredited or abandoned.

Anthropogenic global warming is the 21st Century's Eugenics and will go the same way.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Anthropogenic global warming is the 21st Century's Eugenics and will go the same way.

It will be rejected because it's morally repugnant, regardless of underlying scientific validity?

[RMHED]

Anthropogenic global warming is the 21st Century's Eugenics and will go the same way.

It will be rejected because it's morally repugnant, regardless of underlying scientific validity?

It'll be rejected because it's bunkum, just like Eugenics.

Although as far as science is concerned it's served a useful purpose in regards to aiding funding. Gotta keep those scientists employed doing something and nothing like a good old scare story to help those funding dollars flow.

[SB_Johnny]

Anthropogenic global warming is the 21st Century's Eugenics and will go the same way.

Are you channeling Colbert, or are you one of those people who sighs with relief when the sun rises in the morning? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[RMHED]

Anthropogenic global warming is the 21st Century's Eugenics and will go the same way.

Are you channeling Colbert, or are you one of those people who sighs with relief when the sun rises in the morning? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

No, I'm one of the Anthropogenic global warming deniers. This of course is akin to religious heresy to those who truly believe in the fairytale.

[radek]

That's circular. To my mind Intelligent Design is certainly a scientific theory, just as much as evolution is. Both try to make sense of the data available.

Darwin's theory is predictive, and falsifiable (at least in principle - as I said earlier, it does defy controlled attempts at nullification, since it's difficult to "evolve" organisms in a lab or over a reasonable period of time). The "theory" of intelligent design is neither.

There are many scientific theories which over the years have been discredited or abandoned.

Yes - always using the same methodological framework.

Evolution can be tested via inferential statistics, based on data that is made available to us (or was placed there by the aliens to mislead us of course). It's not as good having controlled experiments but the ideal standard is still there. Astronomy or for that matter Psychology or Economics have the same problem. That doesn't make them unscientific just means that progress is harder. (On the other hand medicine CAN have many forms of controlled experiments and they still get quite hokey (by that I don't mean that "Alternative medicine" is better - it's worse, far worse in most cases - just that the mainstream stuff isn't very good to begin with), maybe because the training in statistics is crappy)

Of course I agree that ID is not a scientific theory and that it has no business being in a "Scientific theories" categories on Wikipedia, that's just common sense.

Btw, one strong argument in favor evolution over ID is precisely how inefficient lifeforms can be. Why do you think so many people suffer from back aches? If there is/was a designer out there it was clearly either unintelligent or simply malevolent.

[Milton Roe]

And yes, sciences are predictive. Even in the broadest senses of the word.

Only because they've narrowed down the answers to ones that agree with their cosy consensus.

It is impossible prove cause and effect to somebody who doesn't want to believe it, in situations that are not ammenable to direct experiment. For example, Peter Duesberg doesn't think HIV is the cause of the epidemic of AIDS. There exist some people who still deny that smoking tobacco causes cause lung cancer. What are you going to do? What's it going to take to make you believe something you don't want to believe.

[RMHED]

Btw, one strong argument in favor evolution over ID is precisely how inefficient lifeforms can be. Why do you think so many people suffer from back aches? If there is/was a designer out there it was clearly either unintelligent or simply malevolent.

To get time off work?

[radek]

Btw, one strong argument in favor evolution over ID is precisely how inefficient lifeforms can be. Why do you think so many people suffer from back aches? If there is/was a designer out there it was clearly either unintelligent or simply malevolent.

To get time off work?

I don't know what kind of job you got but I gotta be at mine whether back hurts or not.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Evolution can be tested via inferential statistics, based on data that is made available to us (or was placed there by the aliens to mislead us of course). It's not as good having controlled experiments but the ideal standard is still there. Astronomy or for that matter Psychology or Economics have the same problem. That doesn't make them unscientific just means that progress is harder.

Absolutely; that's why I limited my comments to saying that it defies controlled attempts at nullification (by which I meant concocting laboratory experiments, in case I was unclear).

(Though psychology and economics can be quite amenable to laboratory experimentation, depending on what is to be tested.)

[radek]

Btw, one strong argument in favor evolution over ID is precisely how inefficient lifeforms can be. Why do you think so many people suffer from back aches? If there is/was a designer out there it was clearly either unintelligent or simply malevolent.

To get time off work?

I don't know what kind of job you got but I gotta be at mine whether back hurts or not.

While we're on the topic I also think that History, even though it's usually placed with the Humanities, or at least certain aspects of it, should and can be scientific.

[Sarcasticidealist]

While we're on the topic I also think that History, even though it's usually placed with the Humanities, or at least certain aspects of it, should and can be scientific.

I agree with that too; I think there's a case to be made that history is, among disciplines, the most inherently interdisciplinary (which means that it includes scientific elements and elements of the other, truer, humanities). But there comes a point where trying to draw disciplinary boundaries ceases to be either interesting or useful.

[RMHED]

Btw, one strong argument in favor evolution over ID is precisely how inefficient lifeforms can be. Why do you think so many people suffer from back aches? If there is/was a designer out there it was clearly either unintelligent or simply malevolent.

To get time off work?

I don't know what kind of job you got but I gotta be at mine whether back hurts or not.

But can you empirically prove your back hurts, or is it just a theory?

[Milton Roe]

That's circular. To my mind Intelligent Design is certainly a scientific theory, just as much as evolution is. Both try to make sense of the data available. Of course, either may be completely wrong. There are many scientific theories which over the years have been discredited or abandoned.

Yes, but the problem is that there's no piece of evidence you can think of, that will cause the ID people to abandon their beliefs. Which, BTW, cannot be differentiated from the idea that everything was caused by a touch from the noodly appendage of the flying spaghetti monster (FSM).

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg)

If we find that the protein sequence of lizards are closer to human than those of chimpanzees, that will deal Darwinism a blow that it will never recover from. POW!!, evolution by natural selection will be gone, and we'll have to start over. However, such screwed up relationships of living organisms in time and space and structure won't bother Pastafarianism (see above) at all. They'll simply say that the FSM choose to design lizard DNA and proteins to be close to humans, for His own sticky, marinarified pleasure. And for reasons Man Cannot Know™. A theory that explains everything and anything by saying the "FSM did it," is not falsifiable. And produces no predictions.

That is why most of us want Pastafarianism taught in schools, if ANY type of ID is. Just because you don't like noodles, doesn't mean you have the right to be prejudiced against my belief in their supernatural powers. You see those two meatballs? They are two parts of my trinity. With the rest of it different in substance, but the same in essense.

There's really no reason in ID, why the tree-of-life as inferred from DNA and protein sequences, should match the evolution of life as we see it from the strata of the fossil record, which in turn matches the dating we get from radioisotope decay studies. That matching must happen in Darwin's view, but not if it all creation was the result of a Higher Al Dente Power. The FSM could have mixed all this stuff up totally, so that there would be no relationship between ANY of this (dating, strata, DNA, protein, morphology), and it could all be random. Except, it clearly isn't. Scientists had most of the sequence of life on Earth worked out even before we could read protein sequences and DNA sequences (which only happened in the last couple of decades for DNA). And now that we can read genes, they show the pretty much the same story as amino acids showed before them, and strata and fossils and radiodating did before THAT. There are a few surprises, but small, not big ones.

ID allows for surprises of any magnitude. So if you're going to go with it, I demand you pay respect to MY version of it. Above. With the sauce.

[Cla68]

That's circular. To my mind Intelligent Design is certainly a scientific theory, just as much as evolution is. Both try to make sense of the data available. Of course, either may be completely wrong. There are many scientific theories which over the years have been discredited or abandoned.

Yes, but the problem is that there's no piece of evidence you can think of, that will cause the ID people to abandon their beliefs. Which, BTW, cannot be differentiated from the idea that everything was caused by a touch from the noodly appendage of the flying spaghetti monster (FSM).

That's one reason why I think the ID theory is so ridiculously silly. If the ID proponents seriously believed in ID, then they should be taking it even farther, as in attempting to define, based on the evidence they collect, exactly what the Creator looks like, its/his/her attributes, desires, motivations, goals, location, habits, and history. Of course if they tried to do so, they would alienate every Christian sect that believes differently from whatever they came up with.

Anyway, you all are making good points about what defines science. The problem is, as far as I can find, Wikipedia has no official policy or even guideline defining what it considers to be science. The fringe theories and scientific citation guidelines don't get into it. So, since Wikipedia can't define what is considered science, it has to categorize any theory under science if someone says so in a reliable, verifiable source. We let the reader decide if it is one or not based on the sources.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[EricBarbour]

Anyway, you all are making good points about what defines science. The problem is, as far as I can find, Wikipedia has no official policy or even guideline defining what it considers to be science. The fringe theories and scientific citation guidelines don't get into it. So, since Wikipedia can't define what is considered science, it has to categorize any theory under science if someone says so in a reliable, verifiable source. We let the reader decide if it is one or not based on the sources.

That's not how they work---they let the successful wargamer decide, and everyone else (including the reader) can suck it.

Wikipedia is not "scientific" by even the weirdest, most open measurement criteria. Because they
have no standards, everything is up for grabs, and there is no "truth" except what a few interested
crackpots and Aspie college boys say it is.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[CharlotteWebb]

That's circular. To my mind Intelligent Design is certainly a scientific theory, just as much as evolution is. Both try to make sense of the data available.

If you think that's circular, you might consider that (a) theories such as Darwinian evolution adapt to their environment in a manner akin to Darwinian evolution, to the extent that science applies a certain selective pressure against ideas incompatible with new data; whereas (b) theories such as "intelligent design" are in fact intelligently designed for socio-political gain, to present data and gaps therein as evidence of conclusions already taken for granted (owing to Sunday-school sing-alongs or whatever).

[Cla68]

I believe this and this threads show that, at least for immediate future, there is very little hope that the ID topic stands much of a chance of being presented in a neutral manner in Wikipedia. In the discussion, while I tried to focus on compliance with policy (and I, of course may be mistaken in my interpretation), no one else really attempts to justify their opinion with Wikipedia policy. Instead, they repeatedly state that the article should be a certain way because their way represents the truth. In other words, the sources they prefer say that ID is a blight on humanity, so the article needs to show that. Notice in these edits that several editors openly express a fear of allowing an action that might show ID in a favorable light. They don't even try to hide that they are promoting an anti-ID POV.

I never really understood before the depth of contempt and hatred the anti-ID group displays towards ID in Wikipedia. After looking at a bunch of sources in Infotrac today, however, I think I understand better where it's coming from. What I saw was that the academic community loathes ID and the people who promote it with an almost rabid intensity. I read one article, in an academic journal no less, in which the scientist author at the end of the article lists the contact information for anti-ID organizations and asks readers to contribute to the anti-ID cause! I saw other articles in other academic journals about ID in which the academics writing them made no effort at all to treat the subject in a measured, neutral manner. The high level of antipathy and hostility towards the idea appears widespread and unashamed. I now understand better the odds the ID article in Wikipedia is facing to ever be treated in a neutral fashion.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[lilburne]

I don't know how one would begin to be neutral about a bunch of nutjob loonies. It sort of amuses me that a number of my entomology photos get stuffed onto creationwiki. But it did cause me some concern when I had a couple of midwest educators contacted me about using a photo for a book on the 'Evidence for evolotion" fortunately my fears were alaid:



I particularly like the 'bubble of ignorance' quote at the end.

[Cla68]

I don't know how one would begin to be neutral about a bunch of nutjob loonies. It sort of amuses me that a number of my entomology photos get stuffed onto creationwiki. But it did cause me some concern when I had a couple of midwest educators contacted me about using a photo for a book on the 'Evidence for evolotion" fortunately my fears were alaid:

I particularly like the 'bubble of ignorance' quote at the end.

ID proponents do strike me as nutjobs if they truly believe they can counter education about evolution with a theory as non-sensical as ID is. Anyway, I thought I would point out that today in the ID topic, all three behaviors described in the Activist essay were on display:

1. Removal of information- Hrafn removes the category before any discussion on its viability had even begun.

2. BLP- Guettarda tries to sneakily label a signatory of the infamous ID petition as a creationist, even though the guy says that he isn't one. Guettarda then edit wars to try to keep it there.

3. Incivility- Guettarda belittles or insults me on article talk pages not once, or twice, but three times. Another editor, Dominus Vobisdu, subtlely threatens with me with block in a different talk page discussion. I think that's a first for me to be threatened with a block for engaging in a talk page discussion. I've never come across that editor before. How did he have so much information about my past?

Anyone else who tries to NPOV Intelligent Design will probably face similar treatment. This is as bad as I've ever seen it with that article. My addition of the category wasn't necessarily correct, but the treatment I received as detailed above was really unnecessarily hostile.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Kelly Martin]

I think that part of the problem is that a fair and honest representation of "intelligent design theory" would never be accepted by the proponents of intelligent design theory as fair and honest. That is quite simply because intelligent design theory has been advanced for entirely dishonest purposes: it is, at its core, a bald-faced attempt to pass off religious belief as if it were science, for the explicit purpose of forcing a religious belief into a nonreligious context under the cloak of scientific validity. (Many of its proponents do not themselves admit, and may even be cognitively unaware, that this is its purpose.) The problem is that you just cannot get a supporter of intelligent design to set aside their fervent conviction that "God said it, therefore it is true" is a logically correct inference.

The problem is that demonstrating this takes more than a paragraph; it takes an extended examination of both the claims made by intelligent design proponents, and the history and motivations of the major proponents of the theory. And most people don't have either the patience to sit still for that presentation, or even the intellect to fully understand it.

Intelligent design theory is embedded in a huge multilayered conflict in broader culture. To expect Wikipedia, with its stark lack of methodology for the mediation of conflict in any sort of reasonable way, to reach a reasonable conclusion of that conflict is completely unreasonable. No, this one won't end until all the people supporting ID die off, plain and simple.

The fact that intelligent design cannot carry the opinion of the Christian Science Monitor's editorial board (see yesterday's editorial) should be telling enough. Simply put, intelligent design theory isn't a scientific theory at all; it is, instead, a political strategy, nothing more.

[lilburne]

ID: A religious hoax, masquerading as science, that is swallowed hook line and sinker by the incredulous. Often used in an attempt to subvert the education of the young. See Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Then permanently protect the page.

Job done.

This post has been edited by lilburne:

[lonza leggiera]

... See Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District ...

Especially regarding the evolution—sorry— intelligent design of what eventually became the textbook Of Pandas and People.

This post has been edited by lonza leggiera:

[Sxeptomaniac]

ID proponents do strike me as nutjobs if they truly believe they can counter education about evolution with a theory as non-sensical as ID is. Anyway, I thought I would point out that today in the ID topic, all three behaviors described in the Activist essay were on display:

1. Removal of information- Hrafn removes the category before any discussion on its viability had even begun.

2. BLP- Guettarda tries to sneakily label a signatory of the infamous ID petition as a creationist, even though the guy says that he isn't one. Guettarda then edit wars to try to keep it there.

3. Incivility- Guettarda belittles or insults me on article talk pages not once, or twice, but three times. Another editor, Dominus Vobisdu, subtlely threatens with me with block in a different talk page discussion. I think that's a first for me to be threatened with a block for engaging in a talk page discussion. I've never come across that editor before. How did he have so much information about my past?

Anyone else who tries to NPOV Intelligent Design will probably face similar treatment. This is as bad as I've ever seen it with that article. My addition of the category wasn't necessarily correct, but the treatment I received as detailed above was really unnecessarily hostile.

"Unnecessarily hostile" describes the group well. I had hoped they had broken up, or at least moved on, when I was able to interact on the Intelligent Design page regarding reworking the lead without the mob descending, but I guess not.

Guettarda has been fairly dickish in the past, but he seems to have gotten significantly worse lately. There was a time when he usually appeared to be one of the more reasonable members of the group, but now he's the picador, doing his best to goad opponents into doing something stupid.

The interesting part is his bizarre recollections, in which his actions are projected onto the opponent. He lied about me, but, in his memory, I'm the one that made "false allegations". He was the one who jumped straight in to revert a contentious addition into a BLP, but it's those removing it who have the battleground mentality.

The fact that intelligent design cannot carry the opinion of the Christian Science Monitor's editorial board (see yesterday's editorial) should be telling enough. Simply put, intelligent design theory isn't a scientific theory at all; it is, instead, a political strategy, nothing more.

I don't see how that would be telling. I'd be shocked if they had any sympathy for ID. For one, the Christian Science denomination is not aligned with evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity, from which the vast majority of support for ID is drawn. For another, the Christian Science Monitor is a very solid news organization, in my experience. While they report on religion frequently, I have found them to be surprisingly fair and neutral, even when compared to most other news organizations.

This post has been edited by Sxeptomaniac: