Sal Cordova responded – kind of – to my post yesterday in this comment buried deep in his post at Dembski’s place. Predictably, his response does not engage my argument; hell, it doesn’t even come close to engaging it. He was attempting to dispute NIck Matzke’s claim that the use of the phrase “intelligent design” in Of Pandas and People was the origin of that phrase as a label for the modern anti-evolution movement. Sal found an old letter where Darwin used the phrase and, for some reason, thought that actually disproved Matzke’s claim (it doesn’t, as I’ve explained several times without any substantive response).
I pointed out that William Dembski had said precisely the same thing that Matzke said in his expert report in the Dover trial. Dembski wrote:
Of Pandas and People was and remains the only intelligent design textbook. In fact, it was the first place where the phrase “intelligent design” appeared in its present use.
And I asked:
One wonders why Sal didn’t contrast the quote from the Darwin letter with that quote from Dembski.
And here is Sal’s “response”:
Answer: Because the one by Darwin was more humorous.
That’s not an answer, Sal. I didn’t ask why you used the quote from Darwin, since that is obvious: you used it because you want to pretend (dishonestly) that Darwin’s use of the phrase “intelligent design” somehow negates the point Matzke was making. What I asked was why you chose to contrast the Darwin quote with what Matzke said rather than contrasting it to what Dembski said, since the two of them said the exact same thing and Dembski clearly confirms Matzke’s argument as true. You didn’t answer that question.
Then, true to his dishonest quote-mining history, Sal cuts off the relevant portion of the Dembski quote and makes an irrelevant argument:
Of Pandas and People was and remains the only intelligent design textbook.
That statement is obsolescent because Bill Dembski and Jonathan Wells have written a new ID textbook with an new definition of ID.
You are nothing if not predictable, Sal. True to form, you conveniently forgot the relevant portion of the quote and left it off; I’m sure that’s completely coincidental, though. You wouldn’t engage in such dishonesty in order to evade the real issue, would you? Nah, I’m sure you wouldn’t; that’s not what Jesus would do, is it? Let me know when you actually want to engage the substantive issue here rather than playing these stupid and dishonest word games. The only thing you’re achieving here is confirmation of why anyone who has ever attempted to hold an honest discussion with you has come away shaking their head at just how slimy and deceitful you can be.