Tying Up Loose Ends
Categories : The Critics
Editor : MikeGene
published: lundi 1 janvier 2007 20:37:40
Ed Brayton has a brief follow-up reply to me. It is great to see that Ed does indeed make distinctions and does not lump us with the ID movement. He notes it is possible that we are pushing a religious agenda and are part of the PR apparatus of the ID movement, but acknowledges there is no evidence of this. The reason there is no evidence of this is because we are not pushing a religious agenda and are not part of the PR apparatus of the ID movement. He further notes that he does not see us “lobbying school boards to get ID into science classrooms either” and again, this is because we don’t. In fact, years ago, I argued strongly against introducing ID into the science classrooms. Also, for years I have been noting that there is no “ID theory” and that ID does not qualify as science. And let’s not forget that we embraced the Dover decision, and the post-wedge world, with a smile and open arms.
That Ed is able to make these distinctions is further evidence that he stands on principle. I would also suggest that the ability to make such a distinction further supports the validity of my critic typology. Since people like Krauze and I are not politically motivated, Ed is entirely correct to note that we “simply don't matter much.” Type A critics have no reason to feel threatened by us. Yes, we often cross swords with them, but if you look closely, it almost always involves us responding to the stereotypes that are being perpetuated, stereotypes that can squelch a reasoned discussion of ID and have the potential to harm people such as Krauze and myself.