The Vise Strategy Undone

Thanks for the link to the Barbara Forrest article, which is certainly well done!

But this account can't be a valid scholastic critique - there are no fart noises!

board member William Buckingham, Bonsell's co-instigator of the ID policy, told Spahr that he "gleefully watched it burn" because he disliked its portrayal of evolution.

And no one was prosecuted for that destruction of public property?

Why not?

Willfully (and gleefully) destroying artwork donated by school children. That is low.

When can we declare the "Intelligent Design" movement officially dead in the USA? They seem to have given up here and moved to England, where the snubbing was initially slow but now fast and furious. The DI had a very lame year-end review of all of their supposed successes since Dover, but it was pure fantasy.

Or are we at a vacant interim, while we wait for "Sudden Emergence Theory" to make its debut?

I say we remain vigilant, but get back to doing real science while the DI reels into a disillusioned state of irrelevance.

I wish I had the skills of Barbara, she is truly a great asset and feared by ID. for obvious reasons

... Dembski has been reduced to riding the coattails of conservative pundit Ann Coulter, who devoted four chapters of her latest book, Godless, to attacking evolution. These chapters contain the standard creationist canards, but with Coulter's recognizable stylistic stamp: "Imagine a giant raccoon passed gas and perhaps the resulting gas might have created the vast variety of life we see on Earth. And if you don't accept the giant raccoon flatulence theory for the origin of life, you must be a fundamentalist Christian nut who believes the Earth is flat. That's basically how the argument for evolution goes." [63] Coulter credits her ability to write these chapters to "the generous tutoring of Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and William Dembski, all of whom are fabulous at translating complex ideas." [64] Dembski acknowledges his assistance: "I'm happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism ---indeed, I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters." [65] He has dubbed Coulter "the Wedge for the masses." [66]

Coulter is "the Wedge for the masses?" I heard it was "asses."

Has anyone seen this new book about Coulter; Brainless

What's the saying? Those who burn books will eventually burn people?

Barbara is a real treasure. Thank you Barbara (and Steve for the link).

It appears that this article has gotten Dembski into another snit.

Over here at UD

He challenges Forrest for a symposium debate. I say she go for it. My prediction is that Dembski will make unreasonable demands (including, likely, that he and his crowd not have to pony up any cash, as well as limits on what can be used), and then he won't attend, claiming "bias" or some other foofaraw.

These tactics by DeWolf and Dembski highlight the bankruptcy of ID and the blustering cowardice of its leaders, who must capture support with brazen deceit and sarcastic punditry. The trial was Dembski's moment to shine, to explain on the legal record why ID is a "full scale scientific revolution," as he wrote in The Design Revolution (InterVarsity Press, 2004, p. 19). Instead, plaintiffs' witness Robert Pennock read to Judge Jones Dembski's statement regarding ID's revolutionary status--- and then dismantled it [67]. Ironically, Dembski had his arch-critics right where he wanted us ---on the witness stand and under oath. He could have been there, implementing his strategy, helping to "squeeze the truth" out of us, "as it were." In November 2005, after the trial ended, Dembski posted on his "Design Inference" website a pdf made from his May 11 and 16, 2005, "vise strategy" blog pages, labeled as a "Document prepared to assist the Thomas More Law Center in interrogating the ACLU's expert witnesses in the Dover case." He appended a list of "Suggested Questions," which, he wrote, "will constitute a steel trap that leave the Darwinists no room to escape." [68] But when he had an opportunity to witness firsthand how his trap would operate, he was nowhere to be found. He "escaped critical scrutiny" by quitting rather than face cross-examination. He is apparently $20,000 richer for it, however, marking yet another difference between us: whereas I served pro bono, Dembski charged $200 per hour and threatened to sue TMLC for payment for 100 hours of work he claims to have done prior to quitting. In late June 2005, he told Canadian ID supporter Denyse O'Leary that TMLC had agreed to pay him. [69] After ID's dramatic, unequivocal defeat in Kitzmiller, Dembski's priorities remained remarkably consistent: "This galvanizes the Christian community. . . . People I'm talking to say we're going to be raising a whole lot more funds now." [70] If failure is that lucrative, one can only imagine how well-remunerated he and his ID colleagues would be if they could tell the truth and back up their claims about "intelligent design theory."

— Barbara Forrest

(4) Forrest charges me with cowardice. This from a woman whose critique of ID has made her the darling of a secular elite that rules the academy. Has her job, salary, privilege, or social status ever in any way been compromised for her role as an ID critic? She wears her position as a foremost critic of ID as a badge of honor. Indeed, her endowed professorship is just one of the many benefits she has received for assuming the role of ID critic (where would her career be without me?). Perhaps we can settle the matter of cowardice directly: let Forrest and me debate the matter at a symposium spanning a day with each of us delivering two hour-long lectures and then going toe-to-toe in a final debate.

— Dembski

The report marks the triumph of intelligent design as a legitimate form of academic inquiry. This is a great day for academic freedom. I'm deeply grateful to President Sloan and Baylor University for making this possible, as well as to the peer review committee for its unqualified affirmation of my own work on intelligent design. The scope of the Center will be expanded to embrace a broader set of conceptual issues at the intersection of science and religion, and the Center will therefore receive a new name to reflect this expanded vision. My work on intelligent design will continue unabated. Dogmatic opponents of design who demanded the Center be shut down have met their Waterloo. Baylor University is to be commended for remaining strong in the face of intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression.

William Dembski was relieved of his duties as director of Baylor University's Michael Polanyi Center today. He will remain associate professor in conceptual foundations of science within the university's Institute for Faith and Learning.

Baylor University President Robert Sloan has removed me as director of the Michael Polanyi Center despite his having personally solicited me to come to Baylor and establish the Center as a means of furthering work on intelligent design. Some Baylor faculty have exerted enormous pressure on Baylor to disassociate the university from me and my research. Earlier President Sloan had properly characterized these efforts as "intellectual McCarthyism." Because I released a press statement [see above] applauding the results of the peer review committee that passed upon and approved the academic soundness of my work, I am now being labeled as not "collegial" and the statement is said to have fatally compromised my ability to serve as Director. My press release allowed me publicly to state my full support for the results of the peer review committee report. Having made that statement, I then expected to proceed full steam ahead to implement the committee's recommendations by expanding the scope of the center while still focusing my own research on intelligent design -- just as the peer review committee recommended and President Sloan agreed. Instead, I was informed that my press release created a "firestorm" on campus. Shockingly, the administration formally asked me to retract my press release. I explained that the press release accurately conveyed how I perceived the outcome of the peer review committee and that for me to retract it would be tantamount to giving in to the censorship and vilification against me that had been a constant feature since I arrived on campus. I could not and would not betray all that I have worked for in my professional career. In the utmost of bad faith, the administration claimed my refusal to retract my press release constituted a lack of collegiality on my part and charged that this compromised my ability to serve as director, thereby providing the fig leaf of justification for my removal. Intellectual McCarthyism has, for the moment, prevailed at Baylor. The announcement of my removal from the Polanyi Center directorship states that I am to be kept on in my capacity as an Associate Professor in Baylor's Institute for Faith and Learning. I look forward in that capacity to continuing to work on intelligent design and its implications.

Forrest combines a frank, straightforward manner with considerable personal charm. A barely detectable drawl hints at her Louisiana upbringing. Even in this newly liberated age she insisted on a courtly chivalry from her sons, who she raised to open doors and give their seats to sometimes uncomprehending modern women. She is a tiny woman, whose diminutive physical size belies great personal courage and a strong commitment to acting as a public intellectual. Despite her tiny physical stature, personal warmth, and old-fashioned Southern manners, Forrest seems to bring out the worst in those who say they want to restore traditional values to a society they fear is fast going to hell in a handbasket. Richard Thompson, the lead attorney for the Thomas More Law Center, which describes itself the sword and shield for people of faith, went to extraordinary lengths to prevent the soft-spoken Forrest, a professor of Philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University, from testifying as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in the Dover intelligent design trial last fall.

In September, as the Dover trial got underway, Thomas filed a highly unusual motion to exclude Forrest's testimony, expert reports, and the data they were based on. The motion described Forrest as "little more than a conspiracy theorist and a web-surfing cyber-stalker." At the trial, Thomas' questioning of Forrest's credentials centered on her membership in the American Civil Liberties Union, American United for Separation of Church and State, and the New Orleans Secular Humanist Organization, which, he hinted darkly, made her unfit to be an expert witness. The hostility of Richard Thompson's defense team was more than matched by activists in the intelligent design movement. John West of the Seattle-based intelligent design think tank, the Discovery Institute, for example, described Forrest's expert witness report as "innuendos and conspiracy-mongering" a "potpourri of smears and overheated rhetoric." He went on to predict, wrongly as it turned out, that Judge Jones would rule Forrest's expert report and testimony inadmissible in court.

Forrest charges me with cowardice. This from a woman

whose critique of ID has made her the darling of a secular elite that rules the academy. Has her job, salary, privilege, or social status ever in any way been compromised for her role as an ID critic? She wears her position as a foremost critic of ID as a badge of honor. Indeed, her endowed professorship is just one of the many benefits she has received for assuming the role of ID critic

(where would her career be without me?)

Perhaps we can settle the matter of cowardice directly: let Forrest and me debate the matter at a symposium spanning a day with each of us delivering two hour-long lectures and then going toe-to-toe in a final debate.

I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters.

So when Dembski starts losing the debate, would the audience be treated to live farting from Dembski as evidence of his intellectual/creative prowess?

Actually, if Dembski does somehow get to a debate, I'd like to see him called on his association with Ann Coulter. If he's so big on her, does he agree with such statements she's made as noted at salon.com.

Regarding Iraq:
"[I]f my plans had been implemented, the anti-war crowd would be weeping about Iraqi civilian deaths so much they wouldn't have time to pretend they gave a damn about the loss of American lives."

Regarding the mideast:
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians.

I suppose that, since he's quite the booster for her, he clearly wishes we were engaged in carpet bombing in Iraq to the point where mass amounts of civilians are wiped out, followed by forced religious conversion. Engaging him on her extremism would be quite amusing, especially considering the whole "Atheists and/or Darwinists are immoral" schtick that goes on over at UD.

From Dulce et decorum est
by Wilfred Owen

Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! --- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

Unlike Forrest and Miller, who have nice cushy jobs with tenure, at the time I came on as an expert witness for Thomas More, I was in the process of losing my job with Baylor.

This would "settle the matter of cowardice"? directly?

Those ID guys are very good at making use of the logical fallacy thing, but they usually do a pretty crappy job in constructing a halfway decently persuasive fallacious argument. That's because they're morons.

Dembski accuses Forrest and Miller of having cushy, tenured jobs while Dembski was doing...what?

Getting paid.

For nothing.

Classes to teach at Baylor? No.
Papers to grade at Baylor? No.
Research projects, symposia to organize, ID to promote at Baylor? No.

Dembski wrote that after he was sacked as director of the Creationists-R-Us Institute Baylor paid him for the next 4-5 years.

Paid him to do nothing.

Meanwhile, Forrest and Miller were teaching classes, grading papers, doing research projects, organizing symposia and promoting science. That's a cushy job? Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

Now, I don't know about you guys but getting paid to do sod all sounds like a pretty cushy deal to me.

Doc Bill --- Boring as all get out, which leads to eating too much rich food, which leads to the discovery of

Devine Wind!

I wish I had the skills of Barbara, she is truly a great asset and feared by ID. for obvious reasons.

She is "feared" by no one in ID.

Fantastic article. Ms. Forrest has a very concise and professional style. Assuming her speaking skills are as polished as her writing, it's no wonder the defense in the Dover trial did all they could think of to discredit her.

And this is the person Dembski wants to debate face to face? Oh, I hope so. Like someone else said, you can't buy entertainment like that...

Intellectually dishonest? Got anything other than the stark accusation to back that up with? Thats all we ever get from you "IDP"s is hot air. Considering that you've lost every legal case you've been involved in I would say that the burden of proof is squarely in your court for ANY kind of claim you make. Expecting us to take you at your word is idiotic.

Perhaps we can settle the matter of cowardice directly: let Forrest and me debate the matter at a symposium spanning a day with each of us delivering two hour-long lectures and then going toe-to-toe in a final debate.

Er.... didn't Bill agree to debate Ken Millar after Dover (Case Western University Jan 6th 2006) - and then fail to show up, without even having the courtesy to cancel??

Dean Morrison --- Around here little girls learn Akido...

For more video of ID creationism advocates in a debate setting, try this page.

Bill 'Divine Wind' Dembski, Michael 'The Alchemist' Behe, and Warren 'What Establishment Clause?' Nord for IDC; me, Ken Miller, and Genie Scott for good science education.

What's interesting is how very little IDC advocates have had to say about the events of June 17th, 2001 since that time.

Dean Morrison --- Around here little girls learn Akido...

Au contraire my misinformed friend, Barbara Foreest is considered a joke by most IDP's and to be very intellectually dishonest. She is "feared" by no one in ID. But, by all means, enjoy your delusion!

PvM coos: I wish I had the skills of Barbara, she is truly a great asset and feared by ID. for obvious reasons. Au contraire my misinformed friend, Barbara Foreest is considered a joke by most IDP's and to be very intellectually dishonest. She is "feared" by no one in ID. But, by all means, enjoy your delusion!

— Donald M

He [Dembski] has dubbed Coulter "the Wedge for the masses."

— Forrest

Would you be comfortable in claiming that intelligence constitutes a legitimate category of explanation within the natural sciences? If so, then how can you say that intelligent design is non-scientific?

But how can you say that ID is not testable. Over and over again, Darwin in his Origin of Species compared the ability of his theory to explain biological data with the ability of a design hypothesis to explain those same data. Moreover, Darwin stressed in the Origin that "a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." How, then, can you say that ID is not testable when Darwin clearly claimed to be simultaneously testing a design hypothesis against his own theory?

You need radiometric dating to date the fossils in the first place

For absolute dates yes, for relative age no.

Geology as currently practiced requires evolutionary theory

I'm not really sure I'd phrase it like this Andrea. Evolutionary theory explains why fossils change over time and it is this change which ultimately enables biostratigraphy. However, this would remain the case, irrespective of whether or not we knew anything about evolution. The geologic column was developed considerably before Darwin came along.

Creationists frequently charge the geologic column with being an evolutionary construct, hoping to tarnish by association. However, it was developed entirely independently of evolutionary theory.

SteveF: I'm not really sure I'd phrase it like this Andrea. Evolutionary theory explains why fossils change over time and it is this change which ultimately enables biostratigraphy. However, this would remain the case, irrespective of whether or not we knew anything about evolution. The geologic column was developed considerably before Darwin came along.

Ro'B: That appears to be a fine example of circular reasoning.

You might want to read up on the term creole, friend. It need not refer to persons of mixed racial heritage.

The output of people associated with the DI ultimately has nothing to do with the "quality" of Barbara Forrest's work.

I found the answer key to *every* class at Baylor here:

http://tinyurl.com/yf45gr

Born to humble parents, Smith was also a child of the Industrial Revolution (the year of his birth, 1769, also saw Josiah Wedgwood open his great factory, Etruria, Richard Arkwright create his first water-powered cotton-spinning frame, and James Watt receive the patent for the first condensing steam engine). While working as surveyor in a coal mine, Smith noticed the abrupt changes in the layers of rock as he was lowered into the depths. He came to understand that the different layers--in part as revealed by the fossils they contained--always appeared in the same order, no matter where they were found. He also realized that geology required a three-dimensional approach. Smith spent the next 20 some years traveling throughout Britain, observing the land, gathering data, and chattering away about his theories to those he met along the way, thus acquiring the nickname "Strata Smith." In 1815 he published his masterpiece: an 8.5- by 6-foot, hand-tinted map revealing "A Delineation of the Strata of England and Wales."

If anyone fancies reading more on early geology, the following article is a good place to start. Funnily enough, its on an apologetics website. It also mentions my PhD site so I'm happy!

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm

My last post to Andrea got taken to the Bathroom wall. In the extraordinarily unlikely event that anyone cares what I have to say, here it is again:

Andrea

Well, I am no geologist, but it seems to me that while the existing observations would remain the same, the predictive power of biostratigraphy is based on an evolutionary framework.

Biostrat requires the change over time that is explained by evolution. However, it didn't need this framework before it could begin to operate. It simply needed the observation of change.

So, it is best to say that geology requires evolution but doesn't require evolutionary theory. This is what enabled British geologists (e.g. William Smith) to start constructing the geologic column before Darwin came on the scene.

This might seem like semantic nitpicking but I think it is quite important. Young Earth Creationists attempt to deny the validity of the geologic column by suggesting that it is a fiction dreamt up to support evolutionary biology. This isn't true as the column was in existence before Chuck D; it is an indpendent achievement (and no less of one in this geologists opinion!).

Andrea writes:

"
Well, I am no geologist, but it seems to me that while the existing observations would remain the same, the predictive power of biostratigraphy is based on an evolutionary framework."

No it not. Biostratigraphy was developed decades before OOS was published. The predictive power of biostratigraphy is due to the superpostion principle, not evolution.

SteveF writes:

"Biostrat requires the change over time that is explained by evolution. However, it didn't need this framework before it could begin to operate. It simply needed the observation of change."

Biostratigraphy simply requires change in life over geologic time. Whether that is do to terra-formers or evolution is not relevant to stratigraphy.

"So, it is best to say that geology requires evolution but doesn't require evolutionary theory. This is what enabled British geologists (e.g. William Smith) to start constructing the geologic column before Darwin came on the scene."

Stratigraphy in general requires change. How that change is accomplished is not particularly relevant for stratigraphy.

"This might seem like semantic nitpicking but I think it is quite important. Young Earth Creationists attempt to deny the validity of the geologic column by suggesting that it is a fiction dreamt up to support evolutionary biology. This isn't true as the column was in existence before Chuck D; it is an indpendent achievement (and no less of one in this geologists opinion!)."

Yes. For all intents and purposes fossils are passive markers found in rocks as far as stratigraphy is concerned. Lithologic characteristics with or without fossils are used to define units and formations. The basic operation of stratigraphy requires nothing of evolution.

Stuart,

I rather think we are saying the same thing. The simple fact of the matter is that evolution explains the changes required for biostrat; the variation observed enables relative dating. Strictly speaking, evolution wasn't necessary; it could be any agent of change, however in the absence of any other mechanism, it seems fair to say that evolution was necessary (but not understanding of evolution).

I rather think we are saying the same thing. The simple fact of the matter is that evolution explains the changes required for biostrat; the variation observed enables relative dating. Strictly speaking, evolution wasn't necessary; it could be any agent of change, however in the absence of any other mechanism, it seems fair to say that evolution was necessary (but not understanding of evolution).

Dembski wanting to debate Forrest is a laff riot. Forrest already debated ID advocates in the only forum that counts, the federal court. She (and others) won that debate.

Why would Forrest want to engage in a debate she already won?

Nice try Dembski. How about you make a farting Barbara Forrest video to make yourself feel better?

How, then, can you say that ID is not testable when Darwin clearly claimed to be simultaneously testing a design hypothesis against his own theory?

I think one commenter has clued into the fact that Dembski has supposedly taken responsibility for all the errors in those chapters, which includes the flatulence. Recently, Dembski has paraded his lame pull-string fart-humor flash animation, and now he's trying to hand out awards for more flatulence. I suspect that Dembski may have been the source of Coulter's Raccoon flatulence hypothesis.

Why is he so bent on fart noises?

I read part of the Vise Strategy pdf and thought that there must be something on the Web that answers those questions. It seems so obvious -- Dembski puts what he clearly considers his most clever attack out in the air, someone must have considered it worthwhile to show that it doesn't work. But my cursory search did not turn up anything. Anyone know about something I didn't find?

I read part of the Vise Strategy pdf and thought that there must be something on the Web that answers those questions. It seems so obvious --- Dembski puts what he clearly considers his most clever attack out in the air, someone must have considered it worthwhile to show that it doesn't work. But my cursory search did not turn up anything. Anyone know about something I didn't find?