Update: 1/13/06 11:17:25 As of this second, my post is back on Dembski and Friends’ blog. It looks like one needs to take a post-by-post snapshot there just so you can keep track of what’s happened.
And now DaveScot comments (with no mention of having deleted and then restored my post)
You’re saying an undergraduate degree in anthropology is more science than a PhD in math? There’s a good laugh.
How do credentials in biology qualify one to recognize design? I don’t see the connection. Biology is a cross between pipetting and stamp collecting. How does that make one an expert on the nature of digital codes and automated machinery? At least the math guys know a digital code when they see one.
Here are some quotes from your article that make me think you imply “chicken”
What are they afraid of here?
Who exactly is refusing to engage in a competition?
I’m not afraid of competition
Are you going to sit there with a straight face and say you aren’t implying the other side is afraid of the competition you represent? I’m going to have call you a liar if you do.
Well, for one thing I am a math teacher, and I do know a digital code when I see one. Secondly, math is not science. Third, my comments about “competition” were in reference to something John Calvert said about the ID movement in general, not about Dembski. (If one read the newspaper article and had an intent to keep context in mind, one would know that.)
And I am saying that “the other side” is afraid of the point of view about ID that I represent. However, I said that without calling people names, and without making demands.
I would like this conversation to go on at Uncommon Dissent, where it belongs, and not here. However, given that posts can so easily disappear there, I’ve posted this here so there is a record of this exchange.
===================================== Here’s my original post:
Well, I wasn’t “bent out of shape,” but now I am.
DaveScot over at Uncommon Dissent is the target of my ire. Let me tell you why.
This morning I saw that DaveScot had commented on my recent Panda’s Thumb post on my offer to discuss ID with Dembski at KU in a few weeks. Here’s what DaveScot wrote,
Jack Krebs at Panda’s Thumb is all bent out of shape because he wanted to present an opposing view alongside Bill Dembski. He then implies that Bill declined because Bill’s afraid of Jack or intimidated or something.
Excuse me, Jack, but you demanding an opportunity to present alongside Bill Dembski and calling him chicken for refusing is like the Oskaloosa High School Football Team demanding to play the University of Texas Longhorns and saying the Longhorns are chickens for refusing.
Sorry Jack, but you’re just not in the same league as Bill.
I am a registered Uncommon Dissent user, so I posted a comment (which I have attempted to reproduce below.) Thirty minutes later, upon arriving at work, I see that my comment was deleted.
Now I know that they delete stuff over there at the drop of the hat, and they’ve banned people over flame wars. I administer the KCFS forums, and I know the problems that can ensue.
But my post was not like that. DaveScot made comments about me, and I responded in a reasonable manner.
But still he deleted my post.
So now I am bent out of shape, and I am calling someone “chicken”: I’m calling DaveScot “chicken.” Maybe also “hypocritical.” Possibly … well, you decide.
Why should he be afraid to let my comment stand? More broadly, how can a movement that claims to be thwarted in their attempts to enter mainstream conversation about the important issues that they want to address constantly refuse to discuss things? – no comments at all on the DI blog, deletion by whim at Uncommon Dissent?
So I repeat a point from my earlier Panda’s Thumb post: “What are they afraid of?”
For what it’s worth, as best I can recollect, here is the comment I made at Uncommon Dissent that was deleted. Obviously this isn’t completely accurate, because I didn’t keep a copy of the original. But at least it will let you know approximately what I said. Judge for yourself why DaveScot didn’t like it.
Hmmm. Could you explain where I “demanded” anything? Or why you think I am “bent out of shape”? And I certainly didn’t call Dembski “chicken.”
I think your posts would have more credibility if you didn’t exaggerate.
What I did say was,
“ On the other hand, I do believe that they really don’t want to talk in public about the things I wanted to talk about. They want the façade of credibility for ID by setting it against evolution – against some well-know biology professor like Krishtalka, but they don’t want (and I find this ironic) to actually discuss the issue of Christianity and evolution in front of a group of Christians. What are they afraid of here?”
I believe that the discussion that should be taking place should be about the pros of ID versus the cons of ID, not about the pros of ID versus evolution.
As to your remarks about the school I teach at: I am proud of my long career as a public school educator. However, I have education and skills that go beyond those of my paying day job. Given that it is ideas and the ability to articulate them to others that ultimately count, I think I am qualified to discuss ID with Dembski. And for what it’s worth, given that I have an undergraduate degree in anthropology, I think I have more official credentials in science than Dembski does. He (and others in the movement) have certainly not hesitated to critique evolution without having academic credentials in biology.
But thanks for referencing my Panda’s Thumb post.