I admit, on some days, it’s a very scary thing. But I honestly feel less and less worried about it, each day.

I definitely remember the first time I had the actual thought (and not just heard about some else having the same idea), “this internet-thing is going to change the way I live” — when I realized that, every time I was having some trivial spat, some ornery argument with an irate roommate, that I could just go and look up the answer online.

But ultimately, I don’t have any problem with “itinerant thinkers,” so to speak, self-organizing into communities over long distances and living “out of the world.” To each his, or their, own. Culture was always an illusion, anyway — useful shorthand for something that can’t be replaced or destroyed, just … moved around.

…[W]e have entered the era of the Long War of Interpretation. Many brave men and women will give their lives for their concept, before this one is through.

My friend, I fear you’re exactly right.

I’ve spent too many months proofreading books and magazines of the 1850s and early ’60s. Those who do know history are doomed to watch it run around its cycle again….

OK. We’ve completely ironied me out: Dembski being irrational and mean doesn’t scare me. The receptiveness of a vocal subset of mainstream American citizens to such behavior does. I think that what has saved us, over the last 140 years, is the relative difficulty of organizing over large distances, the diffuse isolation of like-minded individuals in diverse local communities.

People today are able to circumvent local diversity entirely, to live “out of the world” in any of a dozen ways. That scares the shit out of me, all irony aside.

Mr. Tozier, we have entered the era of the Long War of Interpretation. Many brave men and women will give their lives for their concept, before this one is through.

If that were the case, then how could anybody win? When would such a thing ever end?

Naah. The only rational interpretation is that it’s a war of interpretation. And within that firm and objective framework we will all know, rationally, when we’re done.

We all need to define our terms. The folks causing problems are the ones who refuse to do so, and impersonate members of categories we assume hold fast in all cases: the rational, the scientific, the Christian, the believer, the scholar.

The good, the evil.

The first layer of (sad) irony in these “debates” is that the players pick two, maybe three camps and reformulate themselves to fit them. The second, deeper layer is that in doing so, they redefine and reconfigure those very “camps”; some don’t even exist until a “debate” opens up in the first place.

The longer-term war is not over reality, pedagogy, differing philosophical approach to education or science, morality, souls or even the control of funds. It’s about identification.

It’s a war over self-identification, and the labeling of others. It’s a war of categories.

I’m on a deadline, here. Homework.

So I do appreciate that you’ve hit the high points in a few minutes. Deep kudos your way. Read PZ’s comments, barring Dembski’s. (a) Herd-following behavior; (b) the echo chamber; (c) insularity; (d) a tiny subpopulation of scouts heading over into “enemy” territory to make a stand; (e) the self-definition of “sides”. And events that fall into some of those letters overlap, while we’re piling on the meta-meta-observations.

Yeesh.

I know there are levels of irony in your post, Mr. T, but I’m having problems unpacking them. So I’m just writing this little blog-rant, instead.

I mean, I guess I just got a jolt when I read your post-title… there are always crazy people, but so many of the Christians I know (and was raised with) would never do anything the way Dembski does — compared to them, he might as well be from Pluto.

And in that light, no, I don’t really want to pat anyone on the back. Although yeah, we’re definitely on the same side. To the extent that there are distinct “sides,” I suppose. That’s probably debatable too.

Sure sure, call me irresponsible, but I prefer to spend my online time reading stuff that doesn’t make me roll my eyes.

Have a look at the supportive comments at Dembski’s blog on the two posts he’s made. How many of them have engaged in critical debate?

You sure you don’t wanna just pat me on the back? I mean, clearly we’re on the same side here.

I agree with son1 — you’re painting with a little too broad a brush. It’d be like saying all complex systems scientists are like that W guy that you’ve mentioned a few times.