Ken Miller's new book Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul is out, and predictably the IDers come out in droves against it. Be sure to read the comments to that thread to see just how truly wacked these people are. The comparison of "Darwinism" to the LDS church is only the beginning.
But none can outdo the Queen of Equivocation, that shrill dissembling harpy known as A. Hart Coulter, for out-of-touch-with-reality commentary:
"With this book, two more witches present themselves for burning: Sean McDowell, whose gift is communicating with young people, and Bill Dembski, often called the Isaac Newton of intelligent design. I think Dembski is more like the Dick Butkus of Intelligent Design. His record for tackling Darwiniacs is unmatched."
Bill Dembski, likened to Dick Butkus? Butkus, this guy who mauled opposing running backs like no one ever had before succumbing to the physical collapse inevitable when one truly goes 100% on every play? She's comparing him to Bill Dembski, who ran away from his chance on a fair stage against the enemy in Dover, and made farting videos about the victors and the referee instead.
And people wonder why she is the bane of the reality-based community. This picture is worth 1,000,000 of her words.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Great point about Dembski running away when it became obvious that his "team" was about to lose! Butkus played on only two winning teams in his nine years but gave his all on every play. Dembski hid in the locker room when things got tough.
Only IDers can confuse facing a challenge with running away from it.
Nice to know that they are generally 180 degrees out-of-whack with reality, not just with biology.
I don't know about Dembski "running away from hic chance on a fair stage against the enemy in Dover" -- maybe he prefers to do his debating off stage? I mean, it's not like he has anything against going head to head with Kenneth Miller /in print/ -- like he does in /this/ paper:
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.09.Expert_Rebuttal_Dembski.pdf
Dembski prefers to do his debating in forums that he controls, are filled with sycophantic fans, and where he can dissemble at will. But he will never expose himself to the likes of a cross-examination under oath.
I dunno. He's debated plenty of people on C-Span, Nightline, and other venues in which he had no control. No sycophantic fans to speak of, either.
I suppose it would be balanced to present Dembski's explanation for not testifying in the Dover case: http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/
2006/12/road-trip.html
Those events were early on - you'll notice he does nothing like that lately. C-span and Nightline are powder puff forums anyway, unlikely to really get at the heart of scientific matters, and where people can pretty much dissemble at will in front of scientifically ignorant hosts. Can you see a modern Isaac Newton shunning scientific conferences to peddle his wares in front of the likes of Larry if-we-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys King?
Are you forgetting that his debating opponent was present, ready to refute?
You are missing the forest for the trees. There is a reason scientists do not resolve their disputes in live debates. It is far too easy in such forums to Gish gallop over one's opponent, who will always lack time for an adequate rebuttal. It is more of an advertising forum than an intellectual one, which is precisely why people like Dembski prefer it.
Post a Comment