Here's my problem, LRA. All that stuff you were (pardon me for this) yelling about-- That's not what all the hullabaloo is about. Here, people are covering up their own personal opinions about where and when it is appropriate to talk about ID with a bunch of whining and attacking and bitching about something totally different. The complaint is phrased as though the guest editors are just grumpy because of the disclaimer. That's *manifestly* not true.
Do I care whether or not they're angry? No. Angry people are hard to talk to, and disagreeable, but that's fine. People get angry. But what's retarded is saying you're angry about something small and superficial, and actually being angry about something entirely different. If the editors issue an apology for the disclaimer they wrote, the stated cause of the problem, will anyone involved in this dispute feel better? No.
Because in order for the people involved to feel better, these editors would have to somehow apologize for the fact that not everyone agrees that ID is bunk. And that, frankly, isn't their fault. If that's the issue, then responsible, grown up, well-educated adults should, in their professional capacity if not in their private lives, get a damn grip on themselves; they should complain about the actual problem, rather than bitching somebody out because all they did was put up a disclaimer, and that disclaimer happened to be a sign of some kind of other problem. Adults who pride themselves on being *reasonable* should complain about what's actually wrong. That's my beef.
Also, LMNOP's communist examples are spot on, in my opinion. That's what tenure is *for*-- the whole reason we have it is so that academics can hold opinions that are dangerous, stupid, factually wrong, unpopular, or silly. Academics are allowed to hold their opinions, even if they're quacks. Even if they're demagogues. Doesn't matter. Because that's what is necessary for the academics who aren't quacks, who aren't demagogues, and who produce meaningful, helpful, useful work to believe and think and do whatever they want to even if the political culture around them doesn't like it.
And frankly, considered as a philosophical idea, ID isn't at all ridiculous. Philosophers seriously think some remarkably wacky stuff. I mean, really really out there. Let's talk about monads some time. Sure, ID is pretty well incompatible with science. (Although I'll just have to take your word for it: whether you like it or not, you do have information that I just don't have access to. It isn't denied me in principle, but short of spending several hundred thousand dollars of someone else's money, I probably can't reliably understand the necessary wikipedia articles). Considered philosophically, ID is worth knowing about-- where it falls on the timeline of information theory and its developments, what kind of thing *would* be irreducibly complex, etc. If I'm understanding correctly, this is a philosophy journal, which only makes this whole thing even more immature.
