Aww, the creationists are criticizing me. It would be so darned hurtful if they actually had valid complaints, but as usual, it’s all half-truths, misrepresentation, and selective quoting … and projection. It’s amusing how their complaints are more accurately reflected back at them.
Poor pathetic Michael Egnor is accusing Orac and me of lacking credibility and resorting to ad hominem in dealing with marketing master Pat Sullivan — he even quotes my criticism of Sullivan, in which I pointed out that he was wrong in substance and was misrepresenting Behe’s and Miller’s books. It isn’t ad hominem at all — it’s explaining how Sullivan’s understand of biology is exceptionally poor and that he doesn’t even seem to have read the source book he’s citing. I would think that the fact that IDists need to prop up demonstrably uninformed marketers to defend their ideas is rather damaging to their credibility.
The second attack is coming from wacky ol’ Vox Day who accuses me of cowardice for advocating that we don’t debate creationists. It’s a remarkably cowardly job on his part: he quotes the bit where I say that the ‘debate’ format is tactically poor and throws away the strengths of science, and then stops right were I start to make suggestions for actively engaging the public with substance and evidence and ideas. Is Day dishonest? Why, yes. But that kind of fraud and blatant twisting of words is Day’s specialty, right up there with his penchant for looney right-wing theocratic babble.
I hate to actually link to those clowns, but go ahead, read their screeds — you’ll see how far off base they both are. It’s a hoot.