[Nataku X]

The original complaint was that religious beliefs were hurt in calling God drunk/belittling. But, reviewing the history, it is clear that the "small d" designer was referred to in the ID context.

It harms the ID side far more to take that joke to mean that the Christian God is a drunk. After all, nearly every adherent of ID makes it clear that the designer can be any god or aliens, and does not deal with the identity of the designer. I've concluded that the complaint, that religious beliefs were insulted, is not valid.

What I thought to be a "boulder" is now a pebble. I believe A-G said something to the effect that "Dumbski" and "Darwood" weren't considered belittling since they didn't refer to the poster--I took that to mean that the belittling cause is more of a personal attack on the poster. Since no one's religious beliefs were violated, and no one was personally attacked, I judge this to be a "gray" area within the agreement.

This is why we needed all the nitpicking & all those provisions and all that--because no one agrees on what "is" means. So, we need to define what belittling means and in what circumstances it applies to, and what personal attacks mean.

[Virginia-American]

When I'm using the defective vitamin C gene as an example of shared errors implying shared ancestry, I've often posted that the hypothesized designer must have had lousy quality control, and I've never been accused of religion-bashing.

If ID is ever considered science, then theories about the designer would be in order. What do we have so far: 1) lousy quality control, and 2) likes to mimic standard mutation/natural selection.

[Nataku X]

Do not take this to mean that I believe that RWP & Aric2000 were justified... only that the charge is now different and may not (operative word: may) be covered under the agreement.

[gore3000]

It harms the ID side far more to take that joke to mean that the Christian God is a drunk.

Sorry, that's what was meant. It was also meant as an opening to Christian bashing. Your statement about that " no one agrees on what "is" means" shows exactly the dishonesty of many of the evolutionists. They know what the words mean, they just do not wish to honor their promises so they look at semantic excuses to their actions.

[BMCDA]

The original complaint was that religious beliefs were hurt in calling God drunk/ belittling. But, reviewing the history, it is clear that the "small d" designer was referred to in the ID context.

But don't forget that:

• The argument from design is not a theological argument, because we aren't necessarily talking about God. But any rebuttal of the design argument is theological, because it requires us to say "God wouldn't do it this way", and this is not legitimate. [16]
  From the Quixotic Message

Regards ;)