In The Chronicle of Higher Education (12/21/01) William Dembski had this to say about his publication strategy:
"I've just gotten kind of blase about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print. And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more."
which makes the following all the more ironic. On commenting of Dawkins' $3.5 million contract for Only A Theory? he says:
$3.5million is a lot of money. The question I have is whether Dawkins still worships exclusively in the temple of Darwin or if he now also attends services at the temple of Mammon.
You got to sense a little envy there.
I think a line might have been cut.
"$3.5million is a lot of money. The question I have is whether Dawkins still worships exclusively in the temple of Darwin or if he now also attends services at the temple of Mammon"
"...and if so, can he get me an invitation?"
Don't forget he threatened to sue to get his $200 per hour "witnessing fee" before he backed out of the Dover Trial.
Hey! Dr. Dembski, isn't Envy one of The Seven Deadly Sins?
It's so pathetic. Dembski wants so bad to be viewed as the anti-Dawkins, an eye-to-eye peer, that his poor li'l green-eyed ego just takes a punishing hit every time Dawkins accomplishes anything.
That said...wow. That's a helluva lot of money.
Cripes! The man's not only a coward, but a hypocrite! How in blazes can he expect to be taken seriously? Of course, he is, by his followers.
God, that's sad. There's no way in hell he can be labeled a scientist with those bloody pathetic excuses for avoiding peer-review.
Sorry, I'm in a bad mood right now
Here he comments:
So why did I post my post: (1) To indicate that there is great interest in our issue and that the same New York trade press is willing to publish both sides of the issue. (2) To offer some titles that I find amusing and that seem to capture more accurately what Dawkins's book is likely to be about. (3) To work in, albeit awkwardly I admit, that crazy ad about Dean Sachs looking to Mammon as a spiritual provider.
One is left to wonder-
Re 1 - so why the hell didn't you just say that. The reader was, I guess, expected to intuit what your point was.
Re 3 - So that's it? A set up for a lame picture? Did you have it sitting on your hard drive for years and have been waiting to find an excuse to post it? Why look for an excuse? After all, you've been posting your excuse for humor (and that of "Galapagoes Finch") for what seems like aeons?
Dembski needs to just man up and admit what's going on.