In recent comments on evolution, Craig seems to work under the assumptions that (a) when I call an idea he expresses, or a conclusion he claims comes from reason, either ignorant or uninformed, I am somehow personally insulting him; (b) I am under some kind of obligation to accord all ideas equal treatment, disparaging none.
As to (a), all I can say is that it should probably go without saying that when I say "This sentence you have written is erroneous" (or words to that effect) it is quite different from writing "You're a dork for thinking that way." The latter is a personal attack, and while some people on the internet do that, I do not, nor would I ever. On the other hand, (as this leads us directly to the second point), I refuse to pretend that, as some doofus once said, "there is no such thing as a bad idea (or a stupid question)" (notice I practiced a personal attack there? you might not know it, but the "doofus" in question was me 21 years ago in a class on political philosophy at Alfred University; my professor schooled me when I said that in the best manner possible by laughing at me).
As a general matter, I am quite willing to listen to pretty much anything anyone wants to bring to the table - I enjoy stories about bigfoot, UFOs, ghosts and ghoulies, even demon possession along with creationism and ID - but when it comes to serious discussions that have a direct impact upon (a) the education of children; (b) the way our country will practice science; (c) true academic and intellectual freedom over and against blind, narrow, ignorant dogmatism, I set fairy tales aside and deal with the the way things are. There is no such thing as bigfoot. Creationism is not science, and Intelligent Design is nothing more than creationism in wool rather than polyester, without brillcream or pomade, all gussied up to be presentable. The problem, of course, is lipstick on this particular pig can't change the fact that it is still a pig.
I am under no obligation to pretend that only a truly open mind would allow for serious consideration of creationism/ID (or for that matter pretty much any other nonsensical idea that the right tosses about that is simply contrary to fact; as the end is listless, I would prefer to deal with them as they come along rather than set up a list a priori) on a level playing field with the theory of evolution. Even if the rest of the world did so, I would refuse to do so, because this isn't a matter that is subject to debate, or argument, or democratic decision making. Science is what it is, and creationism/ID doesn't fall under that heading, no matter how hard one argues the opposite. I realize some people get their feelings hurt by this, but all I can do is smile indulgently at them and direct them to the Creationism Museum in Kentucky, where they can gather with the rest of those who profess this garbage and see diorama of human beings hunting dinosaurs without interference from the rest of us. Please don't try to school me in manners, because at my age, I am unlikely to get any.
So - some rules. If you come here and try to tell me that I have to be polite to you when you spout nonsense, or that your delicate feelings have been bruised by my casual dismissal of said nonsense, all I can say is what I have said before: This is my blog, and I do things my way here. As far as creationism/ID is concerned, I feel no obligation to be polite to an idea that is dangerous intellectually, socially, and (I might add), religiously and theologically. It's crap, it will always be crap, and no amount of perfume will make the stink go away. If you don't like it, the "Exit" button is always a click away.
