In what looks like a fit of bravado, Dembski has once again reiterated his responsibility for any mistakes in the evolution chapters of Ann Coulter's new book. He's essentially saying "bring it on":
In April I announced on this blog Ann Coulter's then forthcoming book GODLESS (go here). There I remarked, "I'm happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism -- indeed, I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters." Jim Downard, rather than simply taking me at my word, instead wants me to elaborate on my correspondence with Ann (go here); and for my refusal to elaborate, charges me with not really taking responsibility for errors in the chapters in question. But such elaboration is not my responsibility. If Ann's chapters on evolution are so riven with difficulties, let him enumerate them, point out the errors, and then hold me up to ridicule for the errors for which I take responsibility.
But of course, many have already enumerated many of the glaring errors in Coulter's book and held Dembski up to ridicule for them, without a single substantive response from him. PZ Myers wrote a response on her absurd claim that there is "no evidence for evolution", an idiotic statement that even the young earth creationist Kurt Wise cringes at. And Ian Musgrave wrote a long essay debunking her arguments about the peppered moths. And Downard himself has a series of 3 essays (1, 2, 3) making very specific criticisms of many of Coulter's claims, complete wtih references to the scientific literature where one may find the evidence that those claims are false or exaggerated.
The sum total of Dembski's actual engagement of these criticisms: zero, zip, nada. He saw fit to post two of Downard's emails to him inquiring about whether he was going to either repudiate Coulter's claims or defend them, so that his sycophants could call the man names, but he has yet to offer a single word in defense of those claims from Coulter's book. This despite his repeated "give me your best shot" bravado. For anyone who has observed Dembski over the years, this is pretty much par for the course.
- Log in to post comments
I see that all the Ringmaster of the UD Circus still wields the banning baton effectively silencing one dissenter.
Dembski is having some personal issues right now, according to DaveScot (if that source is reliable), involving family sickness. Perhaps he has no time to actually sit down and go through the thousands of errors to try to make himself look less stupid, or perhaps he is just losing the honest he once had when he was at Baylor and wanted to use the appropriate means -- research at a university -- to explore his ideas.
Of course, when you author a book, any errors therein are your responsibility, no matter what your sources. As much as Bill wants to get credit, ultimately the inane apery and junior high level citations are her own fault. I think we ought to expect the old boozehound to be responsible for the works she authored, just like every other author is.
Allowing Dembski to take responsibility lets her off the hook. Although I am not suggesting anyone pass up an opportunity to publicly shame Dembski. If Anne isn't competent enough to judge the accuracy and veracity of Dembski's arguments, what the hell is hse doing writing a book on the subkect?
She might as well attempt to write a graduate level textbook on quantum physics.
This is the same guy who wrote The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design, wherein he ignored the toughest questions. So no, this latest fit of bravado doesn't surprise me.
Given her intended audience, it doesn't matter that she has virtually no knowledge of the subjects she writes about. I've come across people who are genuinely perplexed by the assertion that her book contains errors about *anything*, let alone evolution.
I would say he's been constantly subjected to ridicule for so long that it's become impossible for him to filter the ridicule for this book from the others. It's all just background noise, now.
It occurred to me recently that Coulter's book would've been a perfect opportunity to rehabilitate the reputation of William Jennings Bryan. Does anybody know if she puts in a good word for the Boy Orator of the Platte? Or is The Great Commoner persona non grata in Annworld for being -gulp- a Democrat?
tacitus wrote:
Yes I know. It's entirely depressing. That's pretty much why the blame for any errors should be squarely on The Hag's shoulders.
I only wish the shaming could be more public.
FYI, my Talk Reason (and Panda's Thumb) series of Coulter analysis will be pulling apart every claim she makes, in due course. Parts 1-3 are only the first installments, and readers can look at each claim and documentation at their convenience.
I will also be posting follow-ups of Dembski's "response" to the issues raised re Coulter's book.
What response? So far he's just said that he still takes responsibility for them. If he's made any substantive response whatsoever, I haven't seen it.