PZ Myers recently (and accurately) called Barbara Forrest “one of their critics the creationists most fear.” Bill Dembski has now given his usual inane reply at UD:
I find this description of Barbara Forrest remarkable, especially given how studiously she has avoided mixing it up with people on our side.
That claim was so silly that even his fellow IDers were telling him he was full of it, forcing him to add an addendum admitting that he “it appears I’ve overstated matters.” Forrest wrote an entire book on the subject, she’s published innumerable articles about it, she testified at the Dover trial, she’s taken part in roundtable discussions on it. Yep, sure seems like she’s avoided you. But here’s what Dembski really meant:
Ironically, last year around this time she published an essay in which she called me a coward. I replied to her charges and offered to debate her. For the details, go here. Someone at this blog even offered to put up some money for the debate to happen. DaveScot repeatedly emailed her to try to arrange the debate. Never a response from Forrest.
Has Forrest ever debated or had a substantive exchange with any ID proponent?
As if debates actually settled anything. Creationists love oral debates and always have. And yes, they can be fun. But they don’t really mean anything. It’s especially ironic that IDers love oral debates but avoid peer review like the ebola virus. Why? Because they know they can snow a church full of the ignorant and the credulous but have little chance of sliding their nonsense past actual scientists.
As for being afraid of Barbara Forrest, one need only look at the incredible lengths the defense went to in the Dover trial to keep her off the witness stand. You see, Bill, Barbara did “mix it up” with the other side and she did so under oath. Guess what? She kicked your ass up one side and down the other. Her testimony was almost as devastating to the ID side as Michael Behe’s was.