Wait. Man what? Krauze makes an amazing leap of logic, which is almost as amazing as his placement of New Zealand in Australia (he claims I'm Australian, which would be like someone calling an Australian a New Zealander, or calling a Canadian an American for example). Krauze then criticises me for not adhering to some definition that John Lynch from Stranger Fruit gave for creationism, which I've decided to reproduce below:
Firstly, that a very restrivtive definition of creationism as it only encompasses young-earth creationism and ignores a number of viewpoints that are proudly creationist (day age, gap, etc). Secondly, what's the definition of intelligent design? We're not told, but are lead to believe that it is different from evolution (it is) or creationism sensu lato (it is not).Which in fact I do happen to agree with. Reading Krauzes post over at Telic thoughts however, you would think that I've somehow contradicted myself, despite never stating anywhere in that post what definition of 'creationism' I was using. I didn't think this was required actually, because it should be fairly evident that the Baraminology Study Group is a YEC organisation. I naturally constructed my arguments around what the particular YEC groups happen to claim. If I had been arguing against ID, as motivated by the discovery institute among other organisations, I would have framed my arguments differently. I still regard ID as nothing more than creationism, but just dishonest creationism and I'm not sure what point that Krauze thinks he has made.
At the end of his post he comes out with this little tidbit:
What makes this even more ironic is the fact that when we were discussing my poll, Donnell left a comment (although under the name “Aegeri”) , accusing me of using “stacked definitions”. Apparently, the accuracy of a definition depends on who is using it.This conclusion is evidentally what Krauze thought was being a particularly witty 'zing' moment. Unfortunately for Krauze, much like his claim New Zealand is in Australia, his point has gone south and been flung into the ocean. His "poll" to many other science bloggers, which included PZ Myers, Tara Smith, John Lynch among others, used a highly stacked definition of creationism that was entirely too narrow to be of any use. Krauze attempted to basically manipulate the poll to get the answers he wanted, so that he could probably make a post with a vacant non-existant point (much like this one about my post yesterday) but didn't quite get his way. Instead, they didn't react terribly well prompting Krauze to make a silly accusation of some "group think" to not answer the poll fairly, essentially claiming the bloggers he emailed couldn't think for themselves.
In other words from Krauze, I'm not accusing you of a 'conspiracy' I'm accusing you of being unable to think for yourselves and following the leader. For the record, I couldn't care less what other people respond in a poll regardless of who they are and would answer on my own volition. I would like to think that other science bloggers, many with degrees in their relevant fields would also happen to like thinking for themselves also.
Of course, I didn’t say anything about a “conspiracy” or about “marching orders from Elsberry.” I’m simply pointing out the likelihood that respondents were being influenced by the public pronouncements from ID critics that the poll was flawed because it lacked ‘the only answer an ID critic would give’.
At the very least, it should be self evident from a cursory look over my blog where I'm from.
Update: He corrected where I am from in the original post.