Secular Right-eousness

Last week, “David Hume” at Secular Right posted an article, Intelligent Design as Philosophy, in which he reviews an online discussion between Paul Nelson, an I.D. advocate and Ronald L. Numbers, an I.D. critic.

In his otherwise vague and meandering post, Mr. Hume concluded, “Numbers’ defense of methodological naturalism by virtue of its fruits nods to these lived realities of science.”

I took issue with Mr. Hume’s conclusion, and since I’m a frequent visitor to the Secular Right website, I felt obligated to post a comment…

I wrote…

David Hume writes, “Ronald Numbers’ defense of methodological naturalism by virtue of its fruits nods to these lived realities of science.”

In the early 1900s, did physicists dismiss research into quantum theory by saying “we’re satisfied with the fruits of Newtonian physics?” Of course not.

The Scientific Establishment’s desire to quash any criticism of Darwinian theory reveals their inherent insecurity about the validity of their theory. There is no justification for the tactics they’ve used to stifle debate, including firing Professors who’ve merely spoken favorably about Intelligent Design.

The statement that “I.D. isn’t science” is silly. What’s really NOT science is the quashing of dissent.

The story should end there…but a funny thing happened…my comment was never posted!...according to the webpage that popped up when I posted my comment, all comments are reviewed by the moderator before they’re posted on the webpage…24 hours later, when I noticed that my comment was missing – but at least 4 other new ones had been posted – I wrote to the Secular Right authors.

In my email, I said…

Hi,

I wanted to know why my comment on the Jul. 25 article, "Intelligent Design As Philosophy" was never posted. It was not "insulting." Nor did it contain "abusive language." It did, however, speak favorably about the idea of allowing Intelligent Design to be given a fair hearing in our public discourse, as opposed to being deliberately stifled. I would hate to think that my own comment was also stifled on a website whose tagline is "Reality and Reason." Can you please clarify? Thank you.

Needless to say, I never got a response, and since it’s been 48 hours since I sent that email, I’m pretty confident I’ll never receive a response.

I don’t want to get too hung up on this, but I think it’s pretty brazen of the Secular Right contributors to spike my factual, level-headed defense of Intelligent Design, while allowing critics to make non-factual, antagonistic comments like, “ID is just another religious honey pot to attract the religious right.” After all, the tagline for Secular Right is “Reality and Reason” and under their “Frequently Asked Questions” tab, it says…

Q: Was Secular Right established with the aim of combating religion, or converting the world to religious unbelief?

A: No.

It’s not clear to me why Secular Right wants to be a cocoon for atheists, when it can spark an informative dialogue between atheists and believers. But hey, it’s their website! They can do whatever they want. But it’s pretty clear what their agenda is. And it ain’t “Reality and Reason.”

-Todd

P.S.: This is just more evidence that “radical materialists have a credibility problem.”

P.P.S: I’ve emailed my post to the Secular Right folks. If they reply, I’ll let you know.