Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
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.
Comments
"It's especially ironic that IDers love oral debates but avoid peer review like the ebola virus. Why?"
Because scientific explanations take longer than "god diddit" soundbites.
They know they can get out a false statement in a few seconds, and that the full rebuttal/science lesson will usually take longer than the scientist is allotted.
Even if there is enough time for a rebuttal, there is seldom time for anything else, giving the perception that the scientist was always "on the defensive" and, therefore, had the weaker position.
Posted by: Jason Failes | December 10, 2007 10:17 AM
If there's anyone who knows about studiously not mixing it up with the other side, its Dembski. Where was he during Dover again? Where are his publications supporting any kind of positive ID theory in the peer reviewed literature? Nowhere and nowhere.
Public debates...right out of the Ken Ham/Kent Hovind playbook.
Posted by: Dave S. | December 10, 2007 10:30 AM
Have the creationists ever been challenged with mock trials, rather than debates?
Posted by: Nathan Parker | December 10, 2007 10:38 AM
@nathan
Yes they have - it was called "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District"
Posted by: yoshi | December 10, 2007 10:45 AM
They tried a mockery of a trial at Kansas in 2005. The judge/jury would have been minority school board members already decided on a course of creationism, which is what placed them in the minority in the first place. Real scientists boycotted the Kangaroo Court, and the IDers were shredded anyway by attorney Pedro Irigonegaray.
Posted by: Dave S. | December 10, 2007 10:52 AM
This is why Dembski is truly referred to as "The Fig Newton of ID Theory", and no one can take that title away from him.
And to no ones surprise, Dembski has failed to mention any of his losing debate with students and professors (and Bio Grad-Student extroidinaire Abbie Smith of the ERV blog) at OK recently.
Posted by: J-Dog | December 10, 2007 10:55 AM
An incredible statement from Dembski, considering that Forrest testified at the Dover Trial, and he ran away...
Posted by: Bob Vaiden | December 10, 2007 10:58 AM
Wait a minute, just what would be the subject of the debate? Forrest is an *historian* of ID and Creationism. AFAIK, she has never claimed any detailed knowledge of the *science* of ID, just the philosophy.
Does Dembski really want to debate her on the motives and *real* philosophy of ID and the Wedge? Isn't that the *last* thing the DI wants aired out?
Posted by: KeithB | December 10, 2007 11:06 AM
Everyone knows that science is revealed knowledge and that facts are proven with rhetorical flourishes.
Posted by: Janine | December 10, 2007 11:19 AM
Dembski is as obsessed with Barb Forrest as he is with Richard Dawkins.
In January of 2006 Dembski wrote on Uncommon Descent (I'm not honoring this with a link, so to quote JanieBelle, find girlyman's blog for yourself):
Topic: "Would someone please pay for me to go on this cruise -- I promise to behave myself."
Paul Kurtz's skeptic organization has just announced its next cruise, this one to Alaska. Join the Center for Inquiry Explorers Club "with a rich line-up of events and activities, a stellar cast of speakers, entertainment, and breathtaking excursions, all aboard the luxurious Holland America Westerdam." The top-billed speaker is Barbara Forrest," etc., blah, blah.
Commenters chimed in about "don't beat them up!" and crap like that. Dembski works at a baptist bib-bull college that advocates submission for women and recently fired a female Hebrew professor because the president decided to enforce that infamous verse from II Timothy. So no wonder they're upset by a woman.
Quite frankly, I've had enough of Dembski's macho act. He can't pull it off, and he sure as hell doesn't look the part. Anyway, he and Forrest have already met, and he ran away.
Clock is still ticking on the bet, should he ever accept it. Talk about cowardice.
Posted by: Kristine | December 10, 2007 11:20 AM
Actually, DS, the three KSBOE board members sitting judgement over the 2005 Kansas Kangaroo Kourt were members of what constituted a six-member majority on the board at that time: Steve Abrams, Connie Morris, and Kathy Martin were all staunchly pro-creationist (and on record as being so, nor were their subsequent statements about wanting to see the 'controversy' taught anything more than half-hearted attempts to cover their tracks).
They had offered a slot on their panel to a board moderate, but the four moderates wisely declined to grant any more credit to an extra-legal proceding than it was already receiving in the media.
The whole affair was cooked up by their advisor in this tawdry mess, attorney and Kansas resident (but not a member of the Kansas Bar) John Calvert, who also served as their representative during the cross-examination of the witnesses. The Kangaroo Kourt was to be a vehicle for extablishing credibility for a series of changes to the state science standards which devalued the application of the scientific method as it applied to evolutionary theory and cosmology. This course of action was decided upon after the established (and legitimate) public hearing process failed to generate sufficient popular support for their radical changes to the standards.
Calvert was hoping to lure mainstream scientists into situations where he could blindside them with cross-examination questions designed to discredit them, and therefore demonstrate to the populace that his position was legitimate. Thus, at the suggestion of Kansas Citizens for Science, mainstream scientists universally boycotted the hearings, and Calvert was left with a list comprised only of witnesses sympathetic to his cause.
During the testimony, it became clear that at least two of the panel of KSBOE members (Martin and Morris) hadn't even read the standards upon which they were passing judgement. Later, these two would try to deny what they had said, but it became obvious that they were preferring to rely exclusively upon Calvert's advice in the matter.
In the final analysis, the failure of the Kangaroo Kourt became instrumental in restoring two seats on the KSBOE to moderates in the subsequent election.
Posted by: Farb | December 10, 2007 11:32 AM
Thanks Farb. I was going by memory and figured I may have flubbed on some of the details.
Posted by: Dave S. | December 10, 2007 11:50 AM
If there's anyone who knows about studiously not mixing it up with the other side, its Dembski. Where was he during Dover again?
At home counting his cash, that's where. He managed to get paid something like $20K for his non-appearance and non-testimony. Exactly what we've come to expect of Dembski and why he's the Max Bialystock of pseudoscience.
Posted by: triviality | December 10, 2007 1:08 PM
Dembski's excuse for his statement is especially wormy (in the comments):
Suuuure... Could anyone other than a cdesign proponentsist think that this statement is anything but a rhetorical jab at Forrest?
The two quotes above appear on the same page. Dembski's disciples at UD must be either exceptionally blockheaded or exceptionally wormy themselves to continue following him when he demonstrates this kind of dishonesty.
Posted by: Wes | December 10, 2007 1:31 PM
Can we get someone with da skillz to photoshop Dembski's face into the 'Brave Sir Robin' bits from Monty Python and the Holy Grail? :D And change the name to 'Brave Bill Dembski', of course.
Now THAT would be clever parody, unlike certain cretins that can only make farting noises....
Cheers.
Posted by: Fastlane | December 10, 2007 1:51 PM
"Her testimony was almost as devastating to the ID side as Michael Behe's was."
Now, that's just cold.
Posted by: Joe Mc Faul | December 10, 2007 1:56 PM
Wes -
Note the weasle-word "sustantive". That's the get out of jail free card, like when Dembski or Behe demands "detailed" evolutionary models. That way, they can always dismiss any evidence as not substantive enough or not detailed enough to suit them. Meanwhile, they avoid having any substance whatsoever in their own position.
Posted by: Dave S. | December 10, 2007 2:06 PM
Perhaps Wild Bill was also unaware of Dr. Forrest's latest barb (pun intended) at http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/TX/270_barbara_forrest_on_chris_comer_12_5_2007.asp
Posted by: txjak | December 10, 2007 2:12 PM
triviality,
O why did you mention Max Bialystock? There is a song going round in my head .. 'Springtime for Dembski and IDiocy..'
Posted by: grasshopper | December 10, 2007 4:03 PM
I read through as many of the comments on the DI side as I could, but a man can only stomach so much idiocy. One line did give me a good laugh: "Just because it is beyond nature doesn't make it supernatural."
Posted by: Taz | December 10, 2007 4:11 PM
DS:
With another election coming up next year in Kansas, it's worthwhile to keep the memory of past atrocities fresh.
Posted by: Farb | December 10, 2007 7:50 PM
Here's a piece of trivia for you: On the brief of Amici Curiae biologists and other scientists in support of defendants organized by the Discovery Institute and submitted in the Kitzmiller case (Document 245), one of the scientists (Theodore W. Geier, page 33) lists his expertise as Ph.D. Forrest Hydrology. What do you suppose was on their minds when they put together that list?
Posted by: Bayesian Bouffant, FCD | December 11, 2007 9:13 AM
If Dembski gets cut off at the knees by Forrest, does he make a sound? Not much of one it seems.
Posted by: Dave S. | December 11, 2007 9:21 AM
Taz wrote:
Ha! Too funny.
Posted by: Leni | December 11, 2007 12:18 PM
Perhaps it is worth repeating:
'Why it is usually NOT a good idea to debate a crationist (of any ilk)."
Several valid points on this have been made above (time required to give a scientific explanation vs. the short lies by creationists, etc.). Whenever a scientist supporting evolution agrees to debate a creationist, the creationist uses that as a supposed example of their relevance - 'See how important we are - scientists agree to debate us.'
Posted by: vhutchison | December 11, 2007 12:35 PM
Um, painfully, I read Dembski's post fully, and there he said that the reason he didn't show up to the trial was because his employer threatened to fire him. This is a pretty odd thing to say, considering how determined he seemed to "fight back agains the evil darwinists"
I think that getting paid 200$/hour and working at several places at the same time (He said he was "losing his job at Baylor", but that's not the only thing he occupied himself, at the time. ) - all those were enough of a safety net for him to plunge himself bravely into the battle against what he refers to as the secualr scientific elite.
Well, so much for bravado.
Posted by: Sickle Cell | December 12, 2007 6:18 AM