The other day, William Dembski reported Eric Pianka to the Department of Homeland Security because he and his fellow creationist Forrest Mims claim that Pianka is fomenting bioterrorism. Today, the FBI is going down to interview Pianka in Austin. And today, Dembski is offering a wager concerning the man:
I’m willing to wager $1000 with David Hillis that sympathy not just nationally but at UTAustin for Pianka will take a nose dive once his TAS speech goes public. Of course, we need to set the terms of this wager more precisely. But it’s a wager easily settled — Pianka needs merely to make his speech before the TAS public (the actual speech — not a bowdlerized version of it).
I’ve got a better idea, Mr. Dembski. You’re convinced that Pianka is an actual bioterrorism threat, as opposed to just a crank who thinks the world is going to end soon, and you think there is evidence to support that charge. In today’s climate of fear, we can expect the FBI to take that threat very seriously. If there is any actual evidence to support the accusation, he will surely be charged and convicted. I’m willing to wager a bottle of single malt scotch that this will not happen.
The FBI will investigate and they will end up doing nothing to this man because there is no actual evidence that he is anything but an eccentric old scientist with a few bad ideas. Why am I wagering a bottle of single malt scotch? Purely for the sake of irony. You see, Dembski has a habit of welching on such wagers. In a response to Genie Scott and Glenn Branch a while back, he offered the following wager:
I’ll wager a bottle of single-malt scotch, should it ever go to trial whether ID may legitimately be taught in public school science curricula, that ID will pass all constitutional hurdles.
As we all know, whether ID may be taught in public school science curricula did go to court in the Dover case and it did not pass all constitutional hurdles. In fact, it was found to be unconstitutional. And note that he can’t say it doesn’t count because it wasn’t appealed because he specifically said all constitutional hurdles, not merely the last constitutional hurdle. It fell on its butt on the very first hurdle. He has never paid off this public wager.
So for the sake of irony, I will bet him the very same bottle of scotch that there will not be enough evidence to charge and convict Pianka of the crimes Dembski and Mims accuse him of. What say ye, Mr. Dembski?