Man, this guy just does not know when to quit. In this comment he builds up a ridiculous straw man version of my position, creating it out of thin air:
My intent was to show how shallow Brayton’s perception of the movement is. Brayton seems to be under the impression a court case here and there will be the end of it, that ID (the lineal descendant of Paley) has no substance, that it was fabricated by guys who really believe Darwinism is true but just put up a charade for money, power, and the love of women.
There are three claims here, so let’s take them one by one and show how two of them are flat out lies.
1. Brayton seems to be under the impression a court case here and there will be the end of it (the ID movement).
Not only have I not said that, I’ve quite explicitly said the opposite, both in my writings and in speeches to various groups. I would invite Sal to view this video of my presentation to the West Michigan Freethought Association, where I focus on the evolution of the anti-evolution movement and point out that this movement has repeatedly evolved, or at least changed labels and poured old wine into new skins, in response to the major court rulings on the issue. And I point out quite explicitly that this will continue indefinitely. The movement isn’t going anywhere, it’s permanent. It changes form and it changes names, but it is not about to go away no matter what a court says. And I’ve never said or implied anything like what Sal claims I believe.
2. …that ID (the lineal descendant of Paley) has no substance…
This is reasonably accurate. I would say that ID has no substance that actually matters in the debate over evolution. It’s a collection of bad and long debunked arguments against evolution and nothing more.
3. …that it was fabricated by guys who really believe Darwinism is true but just put up a charade for money, power, and the love of women.
Again, the exact opposite of my position. Does Sal have reading comprehension problems or does he just not care whether what he says is true or not? Given his behavioral patterns, my money is on option #2. Perhaps he can point out anything I’ve said that even remotely suggests that I think that ID was fabricated by people who secretly believe in evolution but are pretending not to in order to make money or get power or women.
On second thought, no he can’t and there’s a good reason for that: I’ve never said any such thing, nor do I believe any such thing. Sal, if you’re trying to defend yourself against charges of intellectual dishonesty, the last thing you should be doing is so blatantly distorting someone’s positions in this manner. It’s become crystal clear that you just don’t much care what the truth is as long as the version you offer is convenient to your strategic position.