All participants in this thread discussing ID and Science: A farewell and some final points.
1. It is good that this forum provided a means of discussion/communications to/with a community (purportedly scientific), which believes that all IDer philosophy is consistently primitive and without reasoned foundation.
In my opening of this thread, and over the past week or so, I hope I have opened some minds to realize that there are those of us who believe the probability argument favors some divine direction to the evolution, both of our universe (from the beginning) and to and through evolution toward human existence.
I hope many see that many of us seek out science --- not to validate our beliefs, but rather to expand our knowledge base, utilizing science without the fear that the foundations of our belief might be destroyed. If challenges to our beliefs occur, we are willing to accept those disruptions without losing respect for and toward those who present those challenges.
As I have said previously, that challenge is bimodal: It exists for we the faithful as well as for those who are immutably skeptics.
2. It is also good that this discussion evolved to controversy and debate. Debate, however is an argument format and some view it as a challenge: I.e., there must be a winner.
3. There are those who demand winning, and when they sense they may be losing the argument, will pull out all the stops, ignoring ethical concerns, and use personal attack, false allegations and demeaning rhetoric to undermine credible argument.
THIS IS AN INEXCUSABLE POLITICAL TECHNIQUE used in this case by he who identifies himself as: *the* administrator, and I'm also the founder, owner, webmaster, IT guy, chief financial officer, programmer and janitor. --- which means he can pretty much do and say whatever he wants, including scanning for personal information on participants in his forums and choose that which he finds most to his benefit.
As I have said: Mixing politics and political argument and science is toxic to both (but particularly to science).
The fact that this was a breach in ethics is irrelevant to him. By means of personal attack, he drives away opinions (and participants) which (who) credibly do not jive with his concepts. This is an old political tool, and this is what occurred here. He misrepresented my credentials for purposes of lowering my veracity, undermining the validity of my arguments which he apparently saw were being threatened.
SO, WITH RELUCTANCE, I AM TERMINATING MY PARTICIPATION IN THIS FORUM BUT DO GREATLY APPRECIATE THE EXCHANGES I HAVE BENEFITTED FROM DURING THE PAST TWO WEEKS.
I APPOLOGIZE TO THOSE WHO I WAS UNABLE TO SPECIFICALLY REPLY, BUT I WAS GETTING UP TO 20 RESPONSES PER DAY AND COULD NOT PROCESS THEM ALL.
It would be much better if the rules of this forum specifically excluded inaccurate information and slander from inclusion, but then, when you have the power of God in any process, you can do whatever you wish. In this case, God would be well advised to sell this forum and site to someone (or a group of someone’s) who will provide a more objective direction, an assured open minded forum guarded by some form of supervisory hierarchy.
JCH