Darwinism Education

Ed Brayton – Hypocrite Extraordinaire

Spread the love

Ed Brayton posts this seemingly virtuous opinion that anonymous ID proponents should not have their real names exposed.

Yet among my first experiences with Ed Brayton was him exposing my real name in a public comment on Panda’s Thumb. Ed lifted my real name from a private email I sent to him. I don’t particularly try to hide my real name, which is why Ed got it in a private correspondence, but I don’t advertise it either.

Now I ask you, when you catch a guy redhanded in such duplicity how far can you trust him in other matters?

About as far as I can throw the Oskaloosa High School Football Team…

41 Replies to “Ed Brayton – Hypocrite Extraordinaire

  1. 1
    eldinus says:

    The people at pandasthumb (which includes ED) really do scientists a disservice imo. They want us to trust them and their supposed superior intellect, critical thinking skills and scientific “objectivity”, yet they go around constantly hurling insults and participate in internet stalking. I see more civil discourse at many “casual” blogs/forums on the net in which very few if any people that post their have Phds or any scientific credentials at all.

    I also find it odd that they focus all of their criticisms on theists, yet seem to completely ignore the people on the other side who mix their atheistic beliefs and science (*cough Dawkins *cough). Also, many who post/comment at PT not only want us to accept their views on evolution, they want us to accept their political views (some of which aren’t directly related to evo or teaching Id in schools etc..) as well, which I happen to disagree with in most cases.

  2. 2
    Thunar says:

    I read the link DS posted here to Ed Brayton’s article and came found this in there :

    “Dembski wrote anonymous reviews of books that pimped his own work”

    That’s a pretty harsh accusation, so I googled and found this.

    http://www.talkreason.org/Prin.....eviews.cfm

    Has this accusation been addressed here before?

  3. 3
    eldinus says:

    Aside from the charge that “Dembski wrote anonymous reviews of books that pimped his own work” (I don’t know if this is true or not), I think Mark seems to be over reacting about the 1 star reviews at Amazon. Very few books (or pretty much anything sold on Amazon for that matter) out there don’t recieve atleast a few 1 star reviews from people who obviously haven’t read them, regardless of their quality. That doesn’t neccassarily mean that these reviews that Mark’s book recieved are a part of some “concerted effort” by the DI and ID authors etc.. to discredit him.

    Mark Perahk said..

    “The answer seems to be obvious – Amazon allows complete freedom and anonymity to whoever chooses to click the button asserting this or that opinion.”

    Yep and that is precisely why people like myself don’t take Amazon reviews as seriously as Mark seems to, especially when the types of reviews he is complaining about aren’t unique to his books or any one viewpoint (just look at Dembski and Behe’s book reviews there).

    I also find that many of the 5 star reviews on Amazon are just as bad as the one star reviews. For example, the “self-proclaimed” psychic Sylvia Browne gets plenty of 5 star reviews (with many people clicking them as helpful) for her books at Amazon, but that doesn’t mean I am going to go out and buy them hehe. Here is an example…

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ.....8;v=glance

    And I am fairly sure some of the people who reviewed her books didn’t bother to read them.

  4. 4
    DonaldM says:

    eldinus writes (speaking of the regulars at Panda’s Pinkie, er, I mean thumb):

    I also find it odd that they focus all of their criticisms on theists, yet seem to completely ignore the people on the other side who mix their atheistic beliefs and science (*cough Dawkins *cough). Also, many who post/comment at PT not only want us to accept their views on evolution, they want us to accept their political views (some of which aren’t directly related to evo or teaching Id in schools etc..) as well, which I happen to disagree with in most cases.

    Well, if you’re looking for consistency, don’t expect to find it at PT. I’ve often commented how it continually amazes me that those who claim to hold science and scientific reasoning in such high regard quickly abandon it in the defense of their worldview, even to the point of denying that Darwinism is a worldview. But as you point out in your post, they view everything through the lens of Darwinism and its implications.

    Thus we have a state of affairs where the implications of Darwinism and even the motivations of Darwinists are somehow above reproach, but the implications of ID and the motivations of IDPs are the subject of derision and the reason ID must be rejected as scientific at all costs. I’ve yet to have anyone tell me how to have a worldview free science classroom.

  5. 5
    Bing says:

    Dave, I read that hyperlink to the PT thread, and while you are correct about Ed outing your name, as best as I can tell he completely missed on your correct occupation. You provided that. I think it’s referred to as an “own goal” in soccer and is highly embarassing.

    The timeline suggests that a year has elapsed between his outing of you and his more recent stance against such behaviour. If such a change can take place and yet Ed is derided for his inconsisteny it begs the question of your understanding of confession, absolution and the spirit of Christian forgiveness.

    “He that is without sin among you,
    let him cast the first stone at her.”

  6. 6
    Usurper says:

    What a jerk!

  7. 7
    Bling Bling says:

    those who claim to hold science and scientific reasoning in such high regard quickly abandon it in the defense of their worldview, even to the point of denying that Darwinism is a worldview. But as you point out in your post, they view everything through the lens of Darwinism and its implications.

    But Darwinism isn’t a world view. It isn’t even an ism. I post over there at Panda’s Thumb occasionally under a different pseudonym and I agree with you about the level of pushing ideas that are only slightly related to the point and the level of intolerance and smugness with their world view but really they don’t know they are doing it.

    Evolution as a mechanism for speciation is on pretty firm footing with lots and lots of research and evidence to back it up. When they took science classes, they weren’t exposed to the idea that it might not be the best explanation so they “learned” to accept evolution as “The” explanation for speciation. I have found that when evidence is presented, most of the posters there are willing to give it a fair shake. The thing is, we have to present clear and concise and provable arguments to a whole lot of individual details precicely because they are scientists.

    All we really need is one peer reviewed publication that demonstrates the “Theory” of intelligent design and they will come to believe it I think. My take is that we are engaged in more of a PR campaign to get them to understand and scientists have been too rigidly molded into their point of view to listen to the masses of people who know that intelligent design is valid because it is obvious. They want it on their terms. If you really want to change their world view, patiently point out the science of ID, let them criticize and review it, (many of them have served as peer reviewers I think) and provide the information to their questions. I think they don’t realize that they are being obstinant. Patience like the kind we use on our children is what we need in discussion. Patience and honesty. Instead of taking offense at insults, we should listen to them and reply as if they are reasonable challenges. Indeed I think many of their challenges are reasonable. I find that I just want to gloss over the science and shake them by the shoulders until they just open their eyes and see the design around them.
    Cheers.

  8. 8
    DaveScot says:

    Bing

    I’m not a practicing Christian so you’re barking up the wrong tree there. I’m not sure what that’s called in soccer. “Stupid mistake” perhaps?

    I gave my own profession because Ed, as he talked of in his article on how bad things can happen when you out people, identified the wrong David Springer in Austin as me. Ed says that such misidentification can be damaging to a person. Since the other David Springer in Austin is a dean at a liberal university it might very well be bad for him to be identified with my writing so, after Ed outted my name, I did the right thing by at least clearing up Ed’s inept stalking lest he harm two people when he meant harm to just one. I’m not sure what that’s called in soccer. “Doing the right thing” perhaps?

    Is that about as much of a jackass as you’d like to make of yourself today, Bing, or will there be more?

  9. 9
    DaveScot says:

    Bling Bling

    I beg to disagree. Those people aren’t interested in science in their defense of evolutionary dogma. They’re defending a worldview and they have absolutely no restraint on what they’ll use in its defense. For crying out loud they SUED a school board for putting a sticker in a biology book which read:

    “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

    Is that how science operates now – by censoring notions that theories are not facts and that open minds, careful study, and critical consideration don’t belong in science class?

    Give me a major break…

  10. 10
    Charliecrs says:

    This goes without saying but Pandas Thumb is a one sided Evolution side show thats not even funny. I’ve never posted on PT but checking out the links that DaveScot & others have posted before its clear to me that the site name should of long ago evolved to Pandas Dumb. PD – has a nice ring to because the pandas on the site have clearly devolved from their humble (questionable) beginnings. Im surprised that even in 2006 with all the advances in technology used help advance virtually all the areas of science & these evolutionary frauds wont admit they were wrong, have 0 facts to support their cause, pack up their suit case and run out of the country. I mean what will it take another George Bush ?

    Charlie

  11. 11
    Bling Bling says:

    Ok, point taken. But remember that the real problem was the pandas and people book. These poor guys are so entrenched in their precious “scientific method” that when the students were offered a book that diverged from that method they threw a tizzy. Remember, experts in individual fields are supposed to direct curriculum. When philoshophy and logic crossed over into their discipline, they declared a turf war. It’d be like if I was a music teacher and the science department wanted me to teach the physics of musical beauty. I would say, No! You don’t have a right into my territory. etc.

    I think if we were to go out and make a peer reviewed scientific study then they would read it and judge it on it’s merits. Whole groups of people aren’t “bad”. It’s like saying “all christians are closed minded”. If we hear them out and wait till the wind is all expelled, and show them that this isn’t just a bunch of christian wingnuts waiting for the rapture, then I think they will listen to our ideas. And who knows, we could be wrong. Their education and sheer numbers are certainly worth a little credibility. But those who post at Panda’s thumb are not representing all scientists. They can only represent themselves. So if they are scared of a little challenge, let em blow for a while and present them with peer-reviewed science and they will have to shut up.

    -Einstein was attacked by some with anti-Jewish leanings. When a pamphlet was published entitled 100 Authors Against Einstein, Einstein retorted “If I were wrong, one would be enough.”
    http://scienceworld.wolfram.co.....stein.html

  12. 12
    Bing says:

    There will be more.

    He was wrong to attempt to out you a year ago. He also confessed that he “participated in the outing of a prominent creationist, John Woodmorappe …” He now says doing such is wrong and that he regrets such action. Mea culpa?

    If there’s a right-side/wrong side to all this, it appears that Ed has come over to the right side. A year’s sober reflection can sometimes cause this.

    I still think it’s unreasonable to call a person a hypocrite when their views on this behaviour have changed and that they now agree with you?

  13. 13

    DaveScot’s Reading Comprehension Problems

    There’s something particularly amusing when ignorant jerks get their dander up and decide to attack someone else. Our old pal DaveScot has taken a brave leap in the dark, accusing me of being a “hypocrite extraordinaire”, and predictably landed with…

    Ed, you’ve taken prevarication to an impressive level. Next you’ll be replying with things like “Well, that depends on what the definition of is is”. Now don’t go busting an aneurism on me. I hate it when my toys break prematurely.

  14. 14
    DonaldM says:

    Bling2 writes:

    But Darwinism isn’t a world view. It isn’t even an ism. I post over there at Panda’s Thumb occasionally under a different pseudonym and I agree with you about the level of pushing ideas that are only slightly related to the point and the level of intolerance and smugness with their world view but really they don’t know they are doing it.

    I beg to differ. Darwinism is a worldview that states that the full diversity of life is explanable in terms of material causes only. Put differently, Darwinism says that the properties of the cosmos are such that there can be no actual design as the cause of any biological system or life form, even in principle. There is, of course, NO science to back that up…it is the “ism” part of DarwinISM, in other words, a worldview rooted in philosophical naturalism, or something like it. If it were otherwise, there would be no substantive objection to considering actual ID as a live possibility in the causal history of life.

    Contrary to what you state here, I think the PT crowd knows exactly what they are doing. They are staunch defenders of their worldview and will brook no criticism or questioning of it. If it were just a matter of science or scientific evidence, then there would be no problem in considering the possibility that an IC system might be evidence of actual design in a natural system. But to those of the ilk of the PT crowd, science is defined in such a way that ID is excluded a priori.

    Further evidence of the gamesplaying at PT is seen when they invoke fallacious reasoning that even a first year logic student could spot to make their case but refuse to admit error in reasoning when those fallacies are pointed out. In other words, they will never admit errors of fact or reasoning, no matter how wrong they are about anything…especially if it means conceding a point to an IDP or, worse, a dreaded Creationist. Straw man arguments (that is to say misrepresentations of what IDPs actually say), red herrings, ad hominems, question begging and violations of the law of non-contradiction are regular fare at PT and other sites like it. They know exactly what they are doing…protecting their dogma!!!

  15. 15
    Bombadill says:

    “Evolution as a mechanism for speciation is on pretty firm footing with lots and lots of research and evidence to back it up.”

    I’m interested in seeing the research and evidence of Darwinian Evolution producing novel species.

  16. 16
    clbell says:

    Bombadill:
    What would you consider to be a novel species?

  17. 17
    Bombadill says:

    clbell, the fossil record would, for instance, demonstrate the sudden appearance of hominids and canines (2 random examples) without evidence of any mammalian antecedents. So, I ask for the research and evidence of unguided evolution producing these species.

  18. 18
    Bombadill says:

    additionally, evidence on the biochemical level would suggest that there is absolutely no viable Darwinian pathway from one species to a novel one.

  19. 19
    Bombadill says:

    I spoke with Ed on the Panda’s Thumb, in my only post there (on that hotbed of loving encouragement and grace ;)). I found him to be fairly respectful, though perhaps it was because it was my first time actually posting. Anyway, he challenged me regarding the Geologic Column and it’s (alleged) Uniformitarianism. I decided to take a look at the issue and realized that there truly is evidence for catastrophism; strata layers that “should” be on bottom – on top, fossils that “should” be on bottom – on top (including mass fish bones on mountain tops), animals in the throes of birth and conflict, fossilized instantly in all manner of locations. Fossils going thru multiple strata layers. It was all a bit much to simply explain away with “folding” and mud-slides, and the like.

    Anyway, back on topic.

  20. 20
    Bling Bling says:

    “I’m interested in seeing the research and evidence of Darwinian Evolution producing novel species.”

    lungfish? Anyway, you miss my point. What motivation would someone have to deny god? If god were obvious, wouldn’t people want to know? I think that it actually looks to them like ID is wrong. Like I said, one peer-reviewed paper would do it. I think that, even though a blind man can see evidence of design, they are educated out of looking at it that way. They place a pretty high premium on testable data. I think they could be educated back into seeing it that way.

    Catastrophism? As in Gilgamesh’s flood? Where did that come from? C’mon, if we’re serious here, none of this kind of thing helps.
    http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/floods.htm

  21. 21
    Bombadill says:

    The commonality of the flood narritive throughout multiple cultures is actually an evidence that it really happened, bling. But, this really isn’t an appopriate topic for this blog. My point was in reference to Ed Brayton.

    And lungfish. Still a fish.

    You’ll need to do better than that.

  22. 22
    DonaldM says:

    For that matter, what defines “speciation”? Reproductive isolation? But what does that demonstrate in terms of the Grand Evolutionary Extrapolation (the big GEE of evolution, as in “Golly GEE whiz look at all the wonders evolution has wrought!”)?

  23. 23
    Bling Bling says:

    Archaeopterix? I don’t need to do better because I don’t care. But they can do better. I’m saying that almost all the people who get advanced degrees get brainwashed by the same info. THey will trot out their answers faster than we can ask questions. And they will be good answers. If you want them to open their eyes and admit that all of creation is evidence for design, you have to show them. Pointing out that their science isn’t rigorous is foolish. It is. That is what the scientific method does. And confusing “evolution” the science with “Darwinism” the worldview that “states that the full diversity of life is explanable in terms of material causes only” only muddies the waters. Holes in evolutionary theory abound but the theory in it’s totality appears to work to predict how species will react to given external pressures etc. So where those holes exist, not in the geologic column by the way, look at a map of the world’s tectonic plates and put the inconstistent places over it, they end up at the folding and creasing parts, where those holes exist, press for answers. Let’s show them our peer-reviewed science. I know there must be some. Design is as obvious as gravity. Look, call it magic if you want but the whole shebang wasn’t random because we fit too perfectly. Look at how species share so many similar traits. Doesn’t that show evidence of design?

  24. 24
    Charlie says:

    “but the theory in it’s totality appears to work to predict how species will react to given external pressures etc.”

    No, it doesn’t do this at all.

  25. 25
  26. 26
    Bling Bling says:

    Have you ever wondered about milfoil, kudzu, rabbits in australia, the dandilion, starlings, Japanese tiger mussels, etc.? Biologists deal with these thing by understanding how natural selection works. And the lungfish is still a fish? It can walk on land, crawl from pond to pond, hibernate in mud for at least a year, breath underwater and babies are more fishlike than adults. Seems pretty close to a frog if you ask me. But that’s the problem. So what? So there’s a weird, in-between thing called a lungfish. So has anyone ever seen one grow legs and start hopping? Ever seen a cat turn into a dog?

    If we’re just talking religion here, then I’m hopping off the wagon because there is no evidence for any religion. ANd religion is mostly a bad thing in my book. But if we’re talking wonder at the absolutely, utterly unknowable cosmic reality then I’m right here with you. Design is obvious, religion is ridiculous so are we or are we not mixing the two? Read my blog for more info on my religious views.

  27. 27
    Usurper says:

    I have read your blog, it’s just like religion–it’s ridiculous.

  28. 28
    DonaldM says:

    bling:

    And confusing “evolution” the science with “Darwinism” the worldview that “states that the full diversity of life is explanable in terms of material causes only” only muddies the waters. Holes in evolutionary theory abound but the theory in it’s totality appears to work to predict how species will react to given external pressures etc.

    No it doesn’t muddy the water, it clarifies what the real issue is: science as a construct of philosophical materialism, or science as search for truth about the physical world.

    Evolutionary theory doesn’t really predict anything except in some vague sense that species will change over time. It doesn’t tell us what changes to expect or what external pressures will bring about which changes.

  29. 29
    Patrick says:

    Usurper: “I have read your blog, it’s just like religion–it’s ridiculous.”

    Warning: If you’re going to attack someone at least make it constructive criticism and state the reasons why you see Bling Bling’s blog as being ridiculous.

  30. 30
    Charlie says:

    Bling Bling.
    “but the theory in it’s totality appears to work to predict how species will react to given external pressures etc.”

    I said “No it doesn’t do this at all” and you said “??”, I presume in response.

    Take the lungfish for example.
    What external pressures caused this Lamarckian adaptation toward frogginess?
    While the theory is predicting what will happen given external pressures, what pressures would be required to turn the lungfish back into a fishier fish?

    As methane in our atmosphere increases what will the theory predict will happen to, say, the tiger salamander?
    What would an increase in average temperature do?

  31. 31
    DaveScot says:

    Charlie

    I don’t think it’ll take another George Bush, but Jeb Bush is primed and ready to go. He’s done as governor of Florida due to term limits. I think it’s about time we had a governor from Florida for president.

    Anyhow, I’m thinking Sam Alito replacing Sandra O’Connor is what it’ll take. The exclusionary NeoDarwinian stranglehold on evolutionary hypotheses is being kept up by judicial fiat and nothing more. It’s been a theory in crisis for decades. Alito should be confirmed soon. The democrat attempt to derail his nomination was pathetic and impotent.

  32. 32
    DaveScot says:

    Bing

    If Ed sounded at all remorseful about outing me I’d say you have a good point. But he ain’t and you don’t.

  33. 33
    DaveScot says:

    Bling Bling

    “Holes in evolutionary theory abound but the theory in it’s totality appears to work to predict how species will react to given external pressures etc.”

    You seem to be confused on how standard evolution works. Species don’t react with beneficial heritable modifications in the NeoDarwinian world. That’s Lamarckism and in eukaryotes its falsification is considered settled science. It was once considered settled in prokaryotes too but that’s changed recently. I suspect Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characters is going to be resurrected in eukaryotes too but that’s a different argument.

    In the NeoDarwinian narrative, random undirected mutations are the only source of heritable modification. Random and undirected means that if a mutation happens to be beneficial it’s pure luck. Species don’t react with heritable changes to external pressure. They can only get lucky. Or so the narrative goes.

  34. 34
    Bling Bling says:

    It’s not a reaction from my limited knowledge. It’s a numbers game. Lots of mistakes and one get’s lucky and passes on that gene. If I remember right Lamarck hypothesised that traits aquired basically after birth could be heritable. Now, with our understanding of genetics we are pretty confident that doesn’t happen. But let’s say, you’re a fish. You’re out there fishing around and your species is doing great. THe ones that stick to the basic plan work pretty good. the ones that don’t basically die out. Unless of course one is born with the ability to better exploit the niche the species is exploiting. But that’s not really evolution. It is in a very limited way, but all you get is a fish that is better at being a fish. Not much difference really. It’s like michael Jordan is a good basketball player and his kids might be too. But lets say your shallow sea begins to dry out. Your species just drew its unlucky number. But, one of your offspring just happens to have a mutation which allows it to exploit a gene which grows a small lung. Not very useful in a nice ocean but pretty useful for burrowing down in the mud and waiting for the rain. He has maybe 50,000 babies because he is one of the last survivors of his species, the fishyfishyichthyes, so he gets to fertilize a lot of eggs. maybe 20 or so of his offspring share the trait of having a small lung. Now the water goes away for a while every year and he and his 20 offspring have no real predetors left and a new niche that they are a little suited for. At least they dont die. Now, the rains come in the next year and the next and so on and one day the great to the 10th power grandson is born with pretty big flippers. He figures out how to hobble over to the next pond where there is a bunch more food. His kids now have an advantage and fishyfishyicthes is now fishyfrogyicthes. Not the same critter at all. Still like a fish but suited for a different environment and probably not able to mate with his ancient relative fishyfishyichthyes. But if no fish was born with a small lung that made it so they could live buried in the mud for a while way back in fishyfishyichthyes time, fishyfroggyichthyes never would have happened and they would have gone extinct. In fact that is probably what would have happened to most of fishyfishyichthyes’ neigbors in the old sea and, in fact, it is what did happen to all the fishyfishyichthyes who didn’t get on the bandwagon with the lung thing.

    So, that’s not Lamarckism if I am indeed correct about what lamarckism is. And it makes a pretty plausible story too. So, what I am saying is that to tell the darwinists (whose world view is that everything boils down to matter and physics and that spirit and wonder are just simple byproducts of physics) that spirit and wonder are real and observably separate from the physical world, to tell them that nature shows even the most obstinant person evidence for design, to say things like this requires proof. We need to demonstrate for them by showing them the flaws in their science. Debate those flaws. It is possible that we might see a flaw where none exists simply because we are so exaspirated at their obstinance. It is better to concede where we might be wrong so that we have all the credibility when we are right. Like the flagellum thing. Ok, bubonic plague has the same protien structure and uses it to inject cells with toxin. But just because it appears to be an intermediary stage, doesn’t mean it is. Isn’t there one peer-reviewed, scientific, published paper that casts light on this? That, I believe, the smug folks over at Panda’s thumb would listen to.

  35. 35
    CommonSense says:

    Damn hilarious. Glad I came. Needed a laugh. Thanx.

  36. 36
    DaveScot says:

    “Darwinism is a worldview that states that the full diversity of life is explanable in terms of material causes only.”

    Well, that depends on what the definition of is is. If is implies the future tense, possibly explainable in terms of material causes only, then I agree. However, if is implies the present tense, assuredly explainable in terms of material causes only, then I disagree.

    So is there any room for doubt? There certainly is!

    Is that clear enough now?

  37. 37
    DaveScot says:

    “Now, with our understanding of genetics we are pretty confident that [inheritance of acquired characters] doesn’t happen.”

    Guess what. The most tested theory in science was wrong. Twice.

    Darwin hisself said in Origin that inheritance of acquired characters was the primary mechanism of evolution in domesticated animals and, he presumed, lacking evidence to the contrary, was also the operative mechanism in the wild.

    Then along comes NeoDarwinian theory (the modern synthesis) which (30 years after Mendel published his work in genetics, better late than never to admit he was right) combined Darwin’s theory with genetic inheritance and officially falsified Lamarck at the same time.

    It was once a fact as solid as gravity that Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characters was falsified. But lo and behold, it’s now common knowledge that Lamarck was right at least about bacteria which are known to modify DNA on the fly in response to the environment and pass along the changes.

    This is where I come in with a perfectly reasonable question. If prokaryotes are capable of Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characters, and eukaryotes are descendents of prokaryotes, isn’t it possible and reasonable to assume that eukaryotes are capable of Lamarckian inheritance too and evolutionary biologists screwed the pooch on that conclusion as well?

    This is what happens when falsified theories, which Darwinian evolution most assuredly is, are, instead of being discarded when their predictions don’t pan out (hahahaha – pan out – that’s a pun played on the sifting of rocks for bits of fossilized bone and teeth which is the major prediction that didn’t “pan out” for the Darwinian narrative) are propped up time after time after time with ad hoc modifications to explain the failed predictions. Karl Popper is rolling over in his grave! But that’s okay. You know our motto here Freud, Marx, and Darwin. The three pillars of modernism. Two down and one to go! It’s just a matter of time. Evolution is a theory in crisis don’t you know. 🙂

  38. 38
    bradcliffe1 says:

    Thunar’s comment links to an article which contains serious accusations against Dr. Dembski. Has he answered these charges? If so, could someone post a link to his response to the accusations?

  39. 39
    DaveScot says:

    bradcliffe

    Mark Perakh is a crazy Russian physicist known to say all sorts of crazy things. Russians are notoriously paranoid conspiracy theorists and bald faced liars. My favorite example was when I questioned his credentials and his response was essentially “the communists took my papers”. Evidently Mark doesn’t know the classic American excuse “my dog ate my homework”. I had a field day with that one.

    In this case, it would again appear that Mark’s proof disappeared in an unfortunate circumstance beyond his control. A mysterious software glitch in Amazon Canada magically and momentarily revealed the name “William Dembski” behind an anonymous reviewer’s handle. Wow! What’re the odds? At any rate Mark’s “the Canadian software ate my proof” is par for the course for this guy.

    The short answer is Perakh, like a million other lunatics, doesn’t deserve a response to his paranoid accusations.

  40. 40

    [troll]
    A Friend’s Loss and an Adversary’s Viciousness

    Wes Elsberry has already posted about this on his blog, but our friend and fellow Panda’s Thumb contributor Mark Perakh has suffered a terrible tragedy: his house has burned down, taking with it virtually everything. The good news is that…

  41. 41
    DaveScot says:

    Well, I can’t say I never learned anything at Panda’s Thumb. I learned about this cute little plugin they use called a Disemvoweler that strips all the vowels from a troll’s comments. 🙂

Comments are closed.