Science v Intelligent Design: Denyse O’leary to teach a pastoral class on ID

| 121 Comments

flunked.jpg

I think that most people would agree that the terms Religion, Scripture, Spirituality describe quite accurately the context for Denyse O’Leary’s “teaching” of a non-credit course in Pastoral Care about “Intelligent Design”. I hope she can find a suitable textbook which accurately describes Intelligent Design.

Who would have thought that Intelligent Design was so intertwined with religion :-) Thanks Denyse.

The course is described as

RSS7-F By Design or By Chance? An Introduction to the Intelligent Design Controversy The intelligent design controversy is best understood as a conflict between materialist and non-materialist views of the origin and nature of the universe. Reputable scientists can be found on both sides. Because the two sides proceed from different assumptions, they do not agree, as Thomas Kuhn would say, on what would constitute a falsification of their premises. The controversy continues to grow because, while the materialism is prevalent in academia and the media, it is widely discredited in the population at large, including the professional classes.

I wonder if Denyse is familiar with St Augustine when she presents her materialist versus non-materialist views or worse, her claim that “reputable scientists are found on both sides”.

Hat Tip: PZ Myers

121 Comments

For a good text book, may I suggest Forrest and Gross’s Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design

PvM

I hope she can find a suitable textbook which accurately describes Intelligent Design.

Even though the book is not endorsing or promoting ID, Denton’s 1985 book, and specially the chapter “The Puzzle Of Perfection”, gives us solid scientific standing to make a design inference.

Denton correctly says that even thought the design inference has religious implications, it is not based on religious assumptions.

I wonder if Denyse is familiar with St Augustine when she presents her materialist versus non-materialist views

Oh great! The Augustine citation again.

PvM, Augustine’s citation can be used against Darwin skeptics if evolutionism is scientific. But that is the issue at hand!

To put it another way: you can’t assume that Augustine’s quote is valid against Darwin-skeptics just because you believe that evolutionism is true. Augustine’s quote can be used against you, once we put ourselves on the other side of the fence.

Basically, both sides would agree with his words. In fact, we who defend the existence of real design in nature would more correctly use it against people who claim to believe in God but say that there is no scientific (testable, verifiable, etc) evidence for real design in the living world.

By the way, if Augustine was living today, on which side do you think he would be? On the side of those who say that nature shows no evidence for intelligent design, or on the side of those that nature shows plenty and sufficient evidence for real, Mindful design?

It’s hilarious for you to use Augustine’s citation, when, if he were alive today, he would use that citation against you.

or worse, her claim that “reputable scientists are found on both sides”.

Well, reputable scientists are found on both sides. For sure, the majority of scientists believe that things created themselves, but not all of them. Unless if you have a weird “definition” of “reputable”, this shouldn’t even be an issue.

Mats:

PvM

I hope she can find a suitable textbook which accurately describes Intelligent Design.

Even though the book is not endorsing or promoting ID, Denton’s 1985 book, and specially the chapter “The Puzzle Of Perfection”, gives us solid scientific standing to make a design inference.

Denton correctly says that even thought the design inference has religious implications, it is not based on religious assumptions.

Wrong. Pop quiz … who said the following?

Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

_______________________________________

Mats:

In fact, we who defend the existence of real design in nature would more correctly use it against people who claim to believe in God but say that there is no scientific (testable, verifiable, etc) evidence for real design in the living world.

So, what exactly IS this “evidence for real design in the living world”?

(Hint: Evidence against a competing theory is not evidence for your theory.)

_____________________________________

By the way, if Augustine was living today, on which side do you think he would be? On the side of those who say that nature shows no evidence for intelligent design, or on the side of those that nature shows plenty and sufficient evidence for real, Mindful design?

He would probably be a signatory to the Clergy Letter project.

Mats Wrote:

Even though the book is not endorsing or promoting ID, Denton’s 1985 book, and specially the chapter “The Puzzle Of Perfection”, gives us solid scientific standing to make a design inference.

Go on, then. I’ll bite. How about you summarise this “solid scientific standing” of the design inference for those of us who do not possess a copy of that book?

Denton correctly says that even thought the design inference has religious implications, it is not based on religious assumptions.

Actually, I’d prefer to make my own judgement rather than rely on yours, Mats.

Oh great! The Augustine citation again.

PvM, Augustine’s citation can be used against Darwin skeptics if evolutionism is scientific. But that is the issue at hand!

No, Mats, the scientific validity of MET is not the issue at hand. The scientific validity of MET is beyond doubt. It is science. If you deny this, you betray

(1) your ignorance of what science is; or (2) deliberate ignorance of the evidence supporting MET; or (3) denial of reality; or (4) all of the above.

Augustine’s quotation is entirely apt, because people like you, Mats, are causing rational people to ridicule the Christian fundies. Why? It is because of your blatant denial of facts and of reasoned, logical inferences from those facts that are well known to anyone who has had anything remotely resembling a useful education in biological sciences.

To put it another way: you can’t assume that Augustine’s quote is valid against Darwin-skeptics just because you believe that evolutionism is true.

We don’t, Mats. We know that Augustine’s quote is appropriate because MET is a solidly-supported, extensively-tested and logically sonsistent scientific theory. It has undergone nearly 150 years of testing, and is stronger than ever. It is science. It is good science. get used to that, because it will not go away.

Augustine’s quote can be used against you, once we put ourselves on the other side of the fence.

Maybe so, Mats, but you yourself have failed, despite numerous requests from other posters, to supply a description of the scientific theory of ID. You have failed to produce even so much as a hypothesis. All you have been able to supply is a single speculative sentence based on negative reasoning. Your own formulation of “ID theory”, Mats, contains nothing affirmative, no detail whatsoever, and nothing testable. In what way does that advance anyone’s understanding of anything?

Basically, both sides would agree with his words. In fact, we who defend the

Imagined

existence of real design in nature would more correctly use it against people who claim to believe in God but say that there is no scientific (testable, verifiable, etc) evidence for real design in the living world.

OK, Mats, supply us with some of this “testable, verifiable evidence” of design in the living world.

This should at least be good for a few laughs.

By the way, if Augustine was

“Were”, because you have used a conditional.

living today, on which side do you think he would be?

I have already stated in a previous thread that I am convinced he would be a theistic evolutionist.

On the side of those who say that nature shows no evidence for intelligent design,

Yes, that’s the one.

or on the side of those that nature shows plenty and sufficient evidence for real, Mindful design?

Mats, you are blatantly talking through your fundament. You have been asked time and time again to support your assertions that there is “mindful” design in nature. You have mostly not responded to such requests at all. On the very few occasions that you have responded, you have used illogical arguments, but no actual evidence.

IIRC, your latest argument in favour of mindful design was that “there is no evidence that mindless, impersonal forces of nature to have done it instead” (forgive the paraphrase, but this was from memory). Not only is this untrue, but it is a purely negative, eliminative argument. What would actually be more useful is some kind of affirmative argument, something that would say “my favoured hypothesis is correct above all other possible hypotheses because of X”.

BTW, common descent does have such arguments and such evidence supporting it, and CD is only one aspect of MET.

It’s hilarious for you to use Augustine’s citation, when, if he were alive today, he would use that citation against you.

You’re wrong. Just plain wrong, Mats.

Well, reputable scientists are found on both sides.

No, Mats, they aren’t.

Name one reputable scientist with a relevant area of expertise who denies common descent.

For sure, the majority of scientists believe that things created themselves,

Strawman!

but not all of them. Unless if you have a weird “definition” of “reputable”, this shouldn’t even be an issue.

Despite the lies they have been feeding you, ID is not science. It is a political tactic that has, thus far, failed. ID is founded on a religious premise and is supported by nothing more than arguments from ignorance, arguments from personal incredulity, non-sequiturs, and ill-informed and illogical strawman attacks on MET.

The ID proponents lie to their audiences in all their publications. Dembski has invented new terminology to disguise his arguments. When you parse through the double-talk and variable definitions, his arguments come to nothing more than discredited “creation science” arguments.

You yourself, Mats, are using mainly discredited “creation science” arguments. they’ve been seen before. They have been thoroughly refuted. Those arguments are wrong. ID, as expounded by Dembski, Behe, Wells et al., is wrong.

Because the two sides proceed from different assumptions, they do not agree, as Thomas Kuhn would say, on what would constitute a falsification of their premises.

I’m not sure it’s important to falsify the premises per se. What’s important is how well the actual claims that follow from any premises stand up.

Of course, ID’s “somebody did something” theory is going to be hard to falsify without regard to what premises the vague assertion is built on.

But she’s right about one thing: the two camps disagree about what constitutes a falsification, period, because the two camps have different notions of what falsehood means. For scientists, it’s any claim that isn’t in accord with reality. For IDologists, it’s any claim that isn’t in accord with their political agenda.

[W]hile the materialism is prevalent in academia and the media, it is widely discredited in the population at large, including the professional classes.

Quite right. Now if you’ll excuse me I have to sacrifice a goat to Cthulhu so that he’ll remove the deadlock he has placed in my latest SQL script.

Mats,

As you surely know, Denton has a later book, “Nature’s Destiny,” in which he rejected many of the claims of his 1985 book, especially the denial of common descent. Don’t you think that that would be a more up-to-date reference? Even if you disagree with it, don’t you think that students deserve “equal time” for it in that class?

All,

I hope that students drill O’Leary on what the designer did, when, and how, and how IDers plan to test it without any reference to problems with “Darwinism” or “materialism.”

SWT said

Denton correctly says that even thought the design inference has religious implications, it is not based on religious assumptions.

Wrong. Pop quiz … who said the following?

Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

How does that quote invalidate what I said above?

So, what exactly IS this “evidence for real design in the living world”?

There are many, but bringing it to your own territorry, The total absense of any mindless able to generate living forms, coded information, and interdependet functional structures.

Obviously, you, realizing the problem, quickly say:

(Hint: Evidence against a competing theory is not evidence for your theory.)

Sure it is. Either things created themselves, or Someone created them. Evidence against one is evidence for the other. Like I said previously, that “either-or” mindset is the foundation for the “panda principle”, or BDA (“Bad Design Arguement”).

You don’t seem to have a problem with that aproach when it seems to favor evolutionism. It only becomes “invalid” when it moves in favor of the competing theory.

Nigel said

Go on, then. I’ll bite. How about you summarise this “solid scientific standing” of the design inference for those of us who do not possess a copy of that book?

Well, first of all, I advise you to get the book. ANy “summary” will totally miss the mark, and the general context Dr Denton has put around the chapter.

Secondly, to summarize Denton’s point in that chapter, I can say that, design principles we use in building our own machines are found in the cell. (He goes this far only)

Using the principles of analogy, cause and effect, and knowing the basic ways natural forces operate in nature, we can assume that the Source of the design in the living world is the same as the one in man made machines (mind/intelligence) but with the diference that the Mind behind Biology seems to be vastly Superior.

(OBS: I capitalize “Mind” and “Source” because I am a theist. Dr Denton, being an agnostic, does not go this far in his book, and in fact, he is nowhere close.)

But like I said, to get a good grasp on that, get his book. Any summary I give will be insuficient.

PvM, Augustine’s citation can be used against Darwin skeptics if evolutionism is scientific. But that is the issue at hand!

No, Mats, the scientific validity of MET is not the issue at hand.

Sure it is. We all want to know what natural force is able to generate the systems we see in the world.

You’ll probably answer and say “But, Mats, MET is much more than that.” Granted. However, we are skeptical of that part of MET (the ability of mindless forces to generate living systems out of dead chemicals).

Augustine’s quotation is entirely apt, because people like you, Mats, are causing rational people to ridicule the Christian fundies.

There are many rational people who don’t ridicule the position of Darwin-skeptics.

There is nothing to be riducled when we ask for evidence for a given “theory”.

[Y]ou yourself have failed, despite numerous requests from other posters, to supply a description of the scientific theory of ID.

I did suply the definition they give. If you want to go deeper, you can always check on their material. I don’t see how this definition is hard to grasp:

“Patterns in nature best explained as the result of an intelligent cause, as opposed to an undirected (mindless/impersonal) force of nature”

If you can’t grasp that definition, then there’s nothing I can do.

OK, Mats, supply us with some of this “testable, verifiable evidence” of design in the living world.

This should at least be good for a few laughs.

Ok. Here are some things for you to laugh about:

1. DNA

2. The highly sophisticaed bat sonar

3. Dolphin sonar

4. Giraffe’s neck and it’s internal system to regulate the flow of blood in the brain

5. Birds flying in a energy-saving “V” formation

6. Bombardier Beetle etc, etc

Don’t you just feel like laughing when you think of those systems coming into existence as the result mindless forces?!

Well, reputable scientists are found on both sides.

No, Mats, they aren’t. Name one reputable scientist with a relevant area of expertise who denies common descent.

Define “reputable scientist”.

I can name you PhD biologists who don’t believe that thigns created themselves, nor believe in common descent. Is that suficient for you, or will you then turn it around and say that, since they don’t believe in the magical powers of natural selection, then they must not be “real scientists”?

For you, a “reputable scientist” must be one who follows “mainstream science”, and mainstream science says that MET is true.

Therefore, no reputable scientist would deny the validity of Darwinism, and hence, if one does, then he is not a reputable science.

Game set and match. The circle is finished.

With that you would turn a question into a non-question, or better yet, invalidate the opposition by definition.

But, please, by all means, surprise me.

Frank J said:

Mats,

As you surely know, Denton has a later book, “Nature’s Destiny,” in which he rejected many of the claims of his 1985 book, especially the denial of common descent.

I have read ETC (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis) a while ago, but I don’t think Denton denies common descent therein. He denies that the present theory of evolution is responsible for that common descent.

Better yet, he believes in evolution in a smaller scale (rightly named “variation”, not evolution), but in the book is seems to be very skeptical of the larger claims done in the name of Darwinism. In his view, if I recall correctly (if he reads this blog, he can correct me), Darwinism explains small changes, but not larger ones.

Don’t you think that that would be a more up-to-date reference? Even if you disagree with it, don’t you think that students deserve “equal time” for it in that class?

Yes, I believe students should read both Denton’s books, specially the first one. I believe they should read Dawkins’ books aswell, but with a critical eye, not as if they are reading the Qur’an or something.

I hope that students drill O’Leary on what the designer did, when, and how, and how IDers plan to test it without any reference to problems with “Darwinism” or “materialism.”

Why can’t they make reference to the problems of materialism and its brainchaild, Darwinism?

Better yet, he believes in evolution in a smaller scale (rightly named “variation”, not evolution), but in the book is seems to be very skeptical of the larger claims done in the name of Darwinism. In his view, if I recall correctly (if he reads this blog, he can correct me), Darwinism explains small changes, but not larger ones.

Please demonstrate how Intelligent Design explains fossil organisms.

Mats: why should we take the word of someone like yourself, when you have already implicitly admitted you’re a liar, tried to justify lying to us, and continue to spout well-known falsehoods about subjects you clearly have made no effort to understand?

PvM, Augustine’s citation can be used against Darwin skeptics if evolutionism is scientific.

Show us all those peer-reviewed scientific publications that say evolution is NOT scientific. We’re waiting…

Mats wrote (a list he apparently thinks that it is hard for evolution to explain):

1. DNA 2. The highly sophisticaed bat sonar 3. Dolphin sonar 4. Giraffe’s neck and it’s internal system to regulate the flow of blood in the brain 5. Birds flying in a energy-saving “V” formation 6. Bombardier Beetle etc, etc Don’t you just feel like laughing when you think of those systems coming into existence as the result mindless forces?!

No Mats, I don’t. But I do feel like laughing when someone claims that there is no evidence that they in fact did. In each case, evidence does exist for exactly that. Go to the Talk Origins archive, every one of your examples is addressed there. Gee, I wonder how they knew which examples you would choose.

Let’s just take the Bombardier beetle for example. How could such a complex system of interacting parts evolve? Certainly the intermediate forms could not be functional! But of course, when you look at the comparative data, not only do intermediate forms exist but they are indeed functional and adaptive. There are dozens of different species with different mechanisms. There is not just one species of beetle that popped out of nothing. And there is indeed a plausible pathway for even the most complex pathway to have formed by gradual steps. This conclusion is supported by molecular phylogenetics as well. How do you explain the genetic relationships between the species?

And of course the exact same thing is true of all of you other examples as well. When the copmparative data is examined in detail, the answer always becomes clear. Ignorance of the data never causes it to disappear. Now how could those birds possibly learn such a complex behavior by chance? Man how complex can you get? DNA, wow how could a molecule with four different building blocks ever evolve from the chemicals that are most likely to form under primitive earth conditions? I guess we’ll never know for sure so better settle for GODDIDIT.

By the way Mats, I see you left eyes and whales off the list and switched instead to sonar. You never did answer my questions about vertebrate eye evolution or whale evolution. Did you finally look at the evidence or did you just run away? Just for the record, the data for sonar evolution is part of the story of cetacean evolution. There is a well documented series of intermediate forms that reveal how cetacean sonar evolved. Deal with it.

From an exchange between Frank J and Mats:

I hope that students drill O’Leary on what the designer did, when, and how, and how IDers plan to test it without any reference to problems with “Darwinism” or “materialism.”

Why can’t they make reference to the problems of materialism and its brainchaild, Darwinism?

Notice that Mats does not suggest that there is any prospect of any answer to any of those standard questions of any exposition of anything: what, when, how.

I would make some comments about other parts of Mats statement, but that might distract from the fact that creationism has a long, long history of avoiding making substantive statements, and “intelligent design” is only the most thorough about that.

I had a few tutorials on creationism and ID when I was at university. They were in the history of science department where they belonged.

Mats: I have read ETC (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis) a while ago, but I don’t think Denton denies common descent therein. He denies that the present theory of evolution is responsible for that common descent.

Denton now maintains that the evolutionary development of life was the inevitable result of inherent conditions built into the universe. His is a deistic, mechanistic viewpoint that is decidedly at odds with the position of the vast majority of ID supporters in that he believes no direct intervention has occurred since the origin of the universe. He also believes that the regular operations of consistent, natural laws in this world are sufficient to explain the origin and evolution of life. Thus while he disagrees that neo-Darwinian mechanisms are the whole story, he definitely agrees with materialistic, ‘standard’ scientific approaches to understanding the physical history of life. His notions of ‘design’ is along the lines of most theistic evolutionists and is fully compatible with methodological naturalism.

Damn. And it’s being offered at a Canadian university too.

I’m so embarrassed. Now I’ll have to go eat some poutine and drink some maple syrup to make myself feel better.

There are many, but bringing it to your own territorry, The total absense of any mindless able to generate living forms, coded information, and interdependet functional structures.

St Augustine is starting to look worried again. Note however how the evidence for design is once again based on Mats ignorance.

Thanks Mats

Anyone else notice that Mats has mentioned that he knows of reputable biologists, with PhDs no less, who reject the evidence of Common Descent, yet, he’s never once mentioned who these alleged sympathetic biologists are?

PvM, Augustine’s citation can be used against Darwin skeptics if evolutionism is scientific. But that is the issue at hand!

Indeed, and the evidence is that scientists who accept the fact of evolution do not have to misrepresent science. Just watch your own claims and the conclusion is self evident. ID is based on ignorance.

Simple

So Mats, will you finally explain the definition of ‘design’?

[Chirp Chirp]

The intelligent design controversy is best understood as a conflict between materialist and non-materialist views of the origin and nature of the universe.

Do you agree with that Mats? If so, then it seems to be clear that ID is not as much a scientific controversy but a philosophical one.

So let’s see… Mats is asked to provide the evidence of ID, and comes up with a list of creationist claims that were refuted years ago. So this means:

1) The DI were lying when they said ID is not creationism, and still Mats supports them.

2) There is no evidence for ID - just gaps in scientific knowledge that can be explained by the existence of intelligence.

Sheesh, don’t you guys learn? Do you think we just bandy about the words ‘false dichotomy’ because it sounds cool?

But let’s take your definition of ID at your word, Mats. How is ‘an intelligence did it’ a better explanation for animal sonar than ‘it evolved via inherited mutations’? Clue: one of those is testable, the other is childish bullcrap.

And mindless processes can produce complexity, by the way. Don’t forget that.

Mats Wrote:

Why can’t they make reference to the problems of materialism and its brainchaild, Darwinism?

Please reread my comment. I did not say that they can’t do that in the class. I only said that they should be able to state, and propose tests for, what the designer did, when and how, without any reference to to those “problems.”

But you seem to be aware that no one can, so thanks for playing.

I reckon Mats doesn’t care about truth at this point - just about promoting his religion. He’s already admitted that he sees no reason why the ungodly should care about truth, and thus has no reason to speak it to us (never mind that people tend to find honesty a positive quality, and that he should follow his own morals, not the ones he feels other people have). He knows that the people behind ID were lying when they claimed ID wasn’t creationism, so he clearly doesn’t care much about honesty himself. He hangs out on a blog where dissent is forbidden and silenced, so he must know ID can’t stand up to free discussion. And he still goes on supporting it. Good for you, Mats.

In fact, we who defend the existence of real design in nature would more correctly use it against people who claim to believe in God but say that there is no scientific (testable, verifiable, etc) evidence for real design in the living world.

So, Mats, I will take this as you answering “yes” to my oft-stated challenge, “Did God leave scientifically verifiable fingerprints on creation?”

Please explain to me how this does or does not make faith superfluous? How has the discovery of this evidence changed the nature of monotheistic religion? Or is this so-called “evidence” of a sort that has to be believed to be seen? (In which case it is not scientific at all.)

Because the two sides proceed from different assumptions, they do not agree, as Thomas Kuhn would say, on what would constitute a falsification of their premises

Uh, yeah, that’s the problem, no question. Densye proceeds from the assumption that her theological beliefs are absolute, and that falsification of all other epistemological viewpoints can be judged merely by their degree of divergence from her a priori metaphysical stance. Our assumptions are that the evidence ought to decide matters in the “objective sciences”.

Yes, they’re very different assumptions. What makes Densye so very dense is that she thinks that they’re actually equivalent.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Not only does she not understand science, she doesn’t understand the philosophy of science, either. Thomas Kuhn talked about paradigm shifts, NOT falsification. Falsiciation was Karl Popper, someone who ardently disaggreed with Kuhn. If you’re going to name drop, she could at least get the right name.

Stanton said:

Anyone else notice that Mats has mentioned that he knows of reputable biologists, with PhDs no less, who reject the evidence of Common Descent, yet, he’s never once mentioned who these alleged sympathetic biologists are?

That’s because he’s protecting them from the vengeance of the evil Darwinist Cabal that would get them fired, or they’re working at the DI’s secret research facility, or both.

Reputable scientists can be found on both sides.

Apparently Denyse O’Leary didn’t get the message about the “Religion, Scripture, Spirituality” heading.

But besides gloating about creationists admitting their religious basis, I think we should support these actions.

If creationists are coming to terms with their ideas and place their evangelical interest in the right fora, it is a laudable effort. It will help scientists, and also those antiscientists that want to come clean.

Mats:

gives us solid scientific standing to make a design inference.

There is no science in “design inference”. In the 20+ years since that book, no scientific results have supported such a thing. You can’t even define what a “design inference” is, no more than you can define your favorite term “Darwinism”. There is in fact no description of “design inference” that are useful.

if evolutionism is scientific. But that is the issue at hand!

That isn’t the issue at hand, since evolution theory (not “evolutionism” - don’t you know what you are arguing about?) is widely recognized by scientists of all areas to be the basis of biology. If you think that is an issue you are even more the dope than we already know you to be.

The issue at hand is why creationism tries to push itself into biological education without first producing evidence of being a scientific alternative. The answer: because it is a socio-religious fundamentalist movement that wants to destroy science as we know it. See the Wedge.

the majority of scientists believe that things created themselves, but not all of them

Stop lying about what scientists know or believe. What we don’t know for certain is the initial conditions for the universe, but there are many natural alternatives.

Aren’t you tired of being exposed as the liar you are every time you comment? And programmed by creationism™ to boot. (See David Stanton’s commentary on your standard list of creationism grievances and the long since debunking answers in Talk Origins.)

what natural force is able to generate the systems we see in the world.

Forces are interactions that accelerates bodies. That isn’t enough to describe what we see.

For a complete description we need an action, which describes the dynamics of a system (its laws), and initial conditions. The current best proposal for a fundamental action is string theory.

Yes, I was jesting a little bit. But as far as I’m concerned it is a great idea. I believe Popper’s Ghost has lamented the absence of threading in blogs vs usegroups, and this is one (more) reason to reinstate them.

The technology can be implemented for (larger) blogs, and I have seen it elsewhere. I believe it was a wise decision by software providers for blogs to simplify the blog interface as much as possible. But large threads, or sites with persistent trolls, would profit from some form of structural device.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on October 18, 2007 11:31 PM.

Anus Mirabilis was the previous entry in this blog.

Teach the Wedge is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter