Will Dembski Continue to Embarrass Himself?

Dembski has responded - kind of - yet again. He's seen my previous post and noted my statement that Shallit's deposition is included as an appendix in the plaintiff's response to the defense motion for summary judgement. He writes:

Ed Brayton at http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/11/dembski_finally_respondski… claims that Jeff Shallit's deposition is readily available as Appendix III of the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in the Dover Case. See here for that motion. The table of contents lists no appendices. So what happened to them? Stay tuned.

Okay, I admit it. The Priesthood of Darwinian Orthodoxy, in league with the Evil Atheist Conspiracy, has conspired and schemed to remove Shallit's deposition from all copies of that document. We did this on the direct order of the Evil One herself, Genie Scott, but this order almost surely came down from the spirit of Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU and currently Chief Counsel for Satan himself. We had hoped that this would remain secret, but that damn Dembski is so relentless in his probing that I can't hold my tongue any longer.

Seriously, the longer this goes on the more foolish and dishonest Dembski continues to look. First, it was not the plaintiff's motion for summary judgement, it's the plaintiff's response to the defense's motion for summary judgement. Second, I don't know where he got his copy of the plaintiff's response from, but it doesn't include the appendices. It does, however, refer to them in footnote 2 on the bottom of page 9, which reads:

Five appendices accompany this Opposition. Appendix I contains factwitness depositions; Appendix II contains the district's experts' reports and depositions; Appendix III contains plaintiffs' experts' reports and depositions; Appendix IV contains miscellaneous exhibits and articles cited in this Opposition; Appendix V contains Dr. Barbara Forrest's Supplemental Expert Report, which has been filed under seal (see infra note 11). Miscellaneous materials in Appendix IV are cited by tab number, in the form App. IV-__.

More importantly, Dembski continues to ignore the key point. He's responding, kind of, but not to the actual issue that my posts have raised - his lack of honesty in not admitting he was wrong. It's now been nearly two weeks since it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that his claim was wrong, that Shallit's testimony was not pulled by the ACLU because of any alleged embarrassment but was prevented by his side, who even filed a motion with the judge to prevent him from testifying.

We know that Dembski knows this, yet he still won't say what any honest person would say, that he was wrong in his speculation about why Shallit didn't testify. Why won't he say that? Because he simply isn't an honest person. Maybe his ego won't allow him to admit to being wrong. After having the proof shown to him multiple times, he's had every chance to just admit he was wrong and he won't. Speaks volumes, doesn't it?

More like this

It seems that William Dembski can be shamed into more obfuscation, but can't be shamed into actually being honest. First, a little background. On October 29th, Dembski posted an item on his blog in which he claimed the following: Ask yourself why, after submitting almost 200 pages of materials…
More information has come to light on this situation. I noted on Monday that Shallit had not testified, despite being deposed, because after Dembski withdrew the TMLC had objected to allowing him to testify and the attorneys reached an agreement that he would not do so unless they used Dembski's…
Lo and behold, Dembski has finally managed to find Shallit's deposition transcript, months after it was available if he'd really wanted to find it. If this was a scavenger hunt, he'd have finished last. Now, since I've been perfect in predicting his behavior so far, let me try another one. He will…
I think this will be the final word on the Shallit issue. I've uploaded the court's rulings on a series of in limine motions, including the defendant's motion to exclude Shallit's testimony. This ruling came down on September 22nd, just before the trial began, and in it the judge refers to an…

Actually, the uncorrected transcript of the Shallit deposition is available on the NCSE site, as it has been since that site went up at the beginning of the trial phase of KvD. The reason people aren't rushing over themselves to provide the specific URL is that it is the uncorrected transcript, and until the corrected version becomes available, it's not being pushed as a resource. Just to make clear that it is up, I'll quote a question from Thompson (p. 31, lines 4 and 5): "Q. Now, who had invited Mr. Elsberry to the meeting?" And an amazing amount of the transcript concerns Thompson's obsession with what I might have discussed with Jeff, even though Thompson is clueless as to my having a Ph.D.

By Wesley R. Elsberry (not verified) on 11 Nov 2005 #permalink

I've seen it before: A once-intelligent person becoming weirder (perhaps it's due to post-traumatic stress of the culture wars) and winding up as the (blogosphere) village idiot.

I found it! What do I win? I now see it was already noted on Oct. 31 on this same blog that the uncorrected transcript is online. (See Ed's comment on Dembski's excessive complaints.)

I won't give the URL for the transcript, but it took maybe 45 minutes of googling and guesswork. I'm sure that could be reduced substantially.

Oops, I meant to say "obsessive complaints."

Well, this is all of course clearly part of the larger Darwinist strategy to keep information from the public by not putting tables of contents on things.

Although someone has posted a link to the deposition on Dembski's blog, I would not be surprised if I return tommorow and find the comment deleted.

Appendix III contains Shallit's Expert Report. It doesn't contain a rebutal of a specific report by Dembski.

There seems to be a lot of confusion between the expert report and deposition. The deposition is a cross examination in which the TMLC lawyer gets to ask all the questions.

The available copy is indeed uncorrected (e.g. an apparent reference to the mathematician Leibniz is transcribed as "LiveNet") but it's mostly readable. If I can find it, so can Dembski (and perhaps his more gifted stooges). He could also obtain it as part of the public record of the trial, or from TMLC if they're willing.

Because of the nature of a deposition, there is not much incentive for NCSE to rush out an uncorrected copy. It has very little to do with Shallit's expert rebuttal of Dembski's mathematical claims. The thrust seems to be to show that Shallit has a personal animus against Dembski. In my opinion, this is nothing to be embarrassed about.