Intelligent Design

Jeffrey Shallit: Second Grader

Spread the love

I stumbled across a howler today at Jeffrey Shallit’s blog.  Allow me to explain:

A few weeks ago I posted Jeffrey Shallit Demonstrates Again That He is Clueless About Even Very Basic Design Concepts in which I completely dismantled Shallit’s argument about a coin-flip scenario.

Today, I found out that Shallit had posted a “response” of sorts.  Here it is in its entirely, not a single word modified or deleted:

Barry Arrington to the Rescue! And Sal Cordova, Breathless Liar

How cute! Lawyer and certified public accountant Barry Arrington thinks that there is something called “design theory”, and furthermore, I am just too stupid to understand it.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Barry, but there’s no such thing as “design theory”. Yes, there’s the pseudoscience of intelligent design, but there’s no coherent body of knowledge (much less science) about intelligent design that remotely approaches a “theory”. That’s why intelligent design advocates like yourself are unable to respond to even the most basic challenges concerning your pretend “theory” and why even your own vanity “journal” can hardly find anything to publish, even though it almost exclusively publishes the droolings of its creationist editorial board.

As for understanding, Barry, let me just note that I have published an article (with Elsberry) in a philosophy journal on intelligent design in which we spell out, in detail, what’s wrong with it, and why the math is bogus. You could try reading it. I know it’s a bit of intellectual effort, but heck, knock yourself out.

While you’re at it, you may want to admonish your friend Sal Cordova (who for some strange reason is sometimes referred to as “Slimy Sal”) for lying on the same blog entry. Dembski did not “dedicate” his first book to me. Yes, it’s true that he tried to gain some intellectual respectability by dropping a whole bunch of names and thanking them, but that’s not the same as a dedication; it’s an acknowledgment.

Well, if you are like me, you read that “response” and said to yourself “if Barry is so stupid and wrong, why didn’t you point out what he said that was incorrect?”

So I posted in the combox to Shallit’s post, and he and I had the following exchange:

Barry: “I notice that you do not address the substance of my arguments in the post to which you link. Why? Because you were wrong and I was right.”

Shallit: “indeed I did address some of your “substance”, but there wasn’t much there. Try reading it again.”

Barry: “I looked at it again. Your post is the blogging equivalent of a second grader going neener, neener neener. You do not even address my arguments, far less refute them.”

Shallit: “I can’t help improve your reading comprehension, I’m afraid. You’ll have to work on that yourself.”

Two things come to mind: First is the man who was caught red handed cheating on his wife.  When confronted he denied it.  The wife said, “But I saw you with my own eyes,” and the man replied, “Who you going to believe, me or your own eyes?”

Second Shallit really is acting like a second grader. Given what he has already said one would not be surprised if he added something like, “I know you are but what am I you big poopyhead.” And he has the audacity to say that he responded to the substance of my arguments.  The man is pathetic.

 

 

 

 

2 Replies to “Jeffrey Shallit: Second Grader

  1. 1
    scordova says:

    Referring to the acknowledgement pages as the dedication page is hardly a lie, it was an honest misstatement.

    You can read for yourself what Bill wrote here:
    http://www.amazon.com/The-Desi.....0521678676

    As for computational complexity theory, I was introduced to it during the academic year 1987-88, a year devoted to cryptography at the computer science department of the University of Chicago. Jeff Shallit, Adi Shamir, and Claus Schnorr were present that year and helped me gain my footing.

    Bill Dembski
    page xv

    Shallit didn’t bother to retract his claim specified complexity is only algorithmically compressible strings, that’s a far more egregious error than my misstatement. And yes I read Shallit and Elsberry’s paper. It was mathematical theatrics pumping up misrepresentation after misrepresentation. Impressive take downs of arguments Bill didn’t really make….

    And was it true that Shallit spent a good part of his sabbatical to write that paper? Talk about obsession…

    But thank you Jeff Shallit for helping Bill Dembski gain his footing. 🙂

    Thank you Jeff for correcting my reference from the dedication page to the acknowledgement page. I was mistaken in that I gave Jeff more credit than Jeff deserved. Sorry for promoting Jeff to a status you didn’t earn…

  2. 2
    vh says:

    From my experience with them, evolutionists, for the most part, are not interested in the truth, are not interested in an intellectual dialog, are simply unable to see past their blinders and when their sorry ToE is pinned against the wall they generally resort to name-calling and insults.

    Just as a simple example of their dishonesty, look at how the whole junk dna thing has blown up in their faces. If Richard Dawkins, who used the junk dna argument as evidence against creationism, had even an ounce of integrity, he would concede that his predictions were wrong, that the evidence does not favor chance-based evolution, and instead actually favors ID, based on his own criteria. After all, if genomes loaded full of junk favors a darwinian scenario then genomes not loaded full of junk should favor an ID scenario. Right? But would Dawkins ever admit this? Of course not. This is because he is intellectually dishonest. Sad to say most activists evolutionists are no different….so this OP doesn’t surprise me in the least.

Leave a Reply