All right, I'm back for now. I don't know how often I'll be here with my busy schedule, but I'll try to check back often.
Now as a warning, I don't want this topic to turn into a evidence-hashing topic like the topics in the Main Topics Forum. I never meant for that to happen with "Abusive Assumptions," but many reinterpreted it as such and then accused me of being off topic when they were the ones who reinterpreted the topic like this (unfortunately, I caved in to their pressure at times, which didn't help, but still...).
Let's first talk about attitudes. Some of the attitudes people have here are very discouraging to my posting here.
First off, there's a general attitude of cockiness. Many times when I've posted I've been replied to with a mocking, "higher than you" attitude. It's also led to so many negative stereotypes and generalizations on this board. This attitude can often lead to many of the problems I've seen, so it defintely is an issue.
Also, there is lot of targeting at the design/creationist side. Too many topics seem to have posts added that seem to exist more to lament and make fun of the side rather than add to a meaningful discussion (example [not an actual quote, but I've seen things like this]: Science? You mean creos use science?). Just believing in design or creation seems to be warrant enough for these topics. Such targeting adds little to the topic, and it's very discouraging to post when this happens so much.
Sometimes these issues get personal. When I started the "Abusive Assumption" topic earlier, I had one person accuse me of making a cheap shot in an outside topic (which was blatantly off topic outside of the "Abusive Assumptions" topic and was unnecessary). Also, within that topic, someone would told me that he was "watching" me. That sounded like a precursor to stalking and/or harassment to me, but whether or not it's a precursor to one of those two, suffice to say that it is a bit disturbing.
Next, I would like to talk about the scope of "ID isn't science" topics. Now I'm not discouraging attacking a specific tenet of ID as being unscientific, but I'm tired of general attacks that ID in general is unscientific. If such generic attacks are not limited to only the "Is It Science?" forum, then many topics can degrade in to repetitive "ID isn't Science" debates.
Should ID be taught in schools? No, it isn't science.
Is Nature biased against ID? No, it supports science, which ID is not.
Now, I could go on, but the idea is that these generic attacks can stifle discussion when we could be discussing more specific issues. Once again, if a certain ID science or piece of evidence is brought in, it's certainly OK to attack it is as unscientific, but such posts should have a specific focus (such as refuting a scientist or piece of evidence), and generic "ID isn't science" attacks should be limited outside the "Is It Science?" forum.
And please, realize me that I have a life outside of this forum. When I left this forum for a while, I still took a chance to check back in without posting there, and the accusations were already flying against me due to my disapperance. If I'm slow in responding or don't respond to everyone (which is impossible since sometimes I get five replies), have some mercy on me.