iano writes:
You would argue it is, I would argue it isn't. Admin seems to hold that we cannot keep discussing it. Ignore him if you like. I won't.
If I understand RickJB's request, it is for evidence of the designer and of the type of evidence indicative of the handiwork of the designer. I ruled out discussion of "naturalism as religion" and "SETI as a religious effort". RickJB's request does not appear related to these restricted topics. In my judgment, since the topic of this thread is the scientific status of ID, evidence for the ID position would therefore be the most on-topic of all issues.
I encourage you (or anyone) to propose threads on the "naturalism as religion" and "SETI as a religious effort". It isn't that we don't want these topics discussed. We most certainly do. It is just these kinds of controversial topics that make discussion boards interesting.
But EvC Forum isn't just one long thread. At this site the creation/evolution controversy has been divided into forums for each major topic area, and each forum has threads for discussing the many sub-topics. We try to encourage discussion in a thread to focus on that thread's topic.
It was several years ago that Peter Borger first taught us the lesson of how certain topics can derail threads. He entered his GUToB viewpoint into many evolution threads simultaneously, derailing all of them into GUToB discussions. No one has since done this in as wholesale a manner as Peter, but the lesson remains and we no longer allow this kind of topic derailment.
| -- | Percy |
| | EvC Forum Director |
™ Version 4.2
