Recently, Dr. William Dembski gave a talk in Oklahoma about ID. He was invited to speak, although the accounts that I’ve read make it sound more like an ambush.
One such account sounds rather vicious indeed. The account is obviously biased against Dembski. For example, when Dembski gives a good answer, the questioner “Didn’t understand how Dembski ‘operates’. She let him twist around (sic) on her…” This blogger also recounts some quote mines of Dembski in order to portray him in a negative light after the fact.
If that weren’t enough, the blogger seems genuinely pleased with herself for the underhanded tactic of poisoning the well by attacking the commenters on Dembski’s blog. So, either he censures comments and is criticized for hiding, or he doesn’t and is criticized for what others say? This is ridiculous. Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised at the antics of someone who seems positively giddy over heckling Dembski:
Student after student after student– It turned into a party. The audience heckled Demsbki when he wouldnt answer questions. We were laughing before, during, and after his answers.
This, is how materialists hope to win the day, by attacking en masse with underhanded comments and ambushes. It should be about science, but when you don’t have science on your side, you have to resort to something, right?
5 responses so far ↓
HucksPhin // September 22, 2007 at 3:24 am
They’re behavior was dispicable.
Party at Meacham « Further thoughts // September 23, 2007 at 4:40 am
[...] Not a Fair Fight – “Professor Smith”, a “researcher at a middle-size public university on the Eastern seaboard” and ID supporter, attacks Abbie and the rest of “the materialists” for “attacking en masse with underhanded comments and ambushes“. It appears that “Professor Smith” didn’t bother to delve too deeply into the facts of the matter (”He was invited to speak, although the accounts that I’ve read make it sound more like an ambush“) before attacking Abbie for, among other things “underhanded tactic of poisoning the well by attacking the commenters on Dembski’s blog“. She’s invited to discuss the matter at UD, gets banned after three comments, attacked there, attacked at her blog…and dear old “Professor Smith” calls it “underhand” and “well poisoning” to mention that fact. He continues “So, either he censures comments and is criticized for hiding, or he doesn’t and is criticized for what others say?“ I sure hope that Smith is simply speaking out of an ignorance he couldn’t be bothered to correct. Anyone who knows anything about UD knows that (a) they delete comments and ban participants who disagree with them; and (b) the people who attacked Abbie are the people Dembski picked to manage the blog. His final sentence is especially amusing: “It should be about science, but when you don’t have science on your side, you have to resort to something, right?“ Umm, yeah, that’s pretty much how the IDists operate: since they have yet to come up with a single scientific contribution, they engage in obfuscation, misdirection and smear campaigns. Projection on the part of “Professor Smith”? Explore posts in the same categories: Blogging, Creationism, Dembski at OU, intelligent design [...]
Tim // September 24, 2007 at 7:10 am
Yes, ERV is “biased” against pretentious pseudoscientists pontificating on subjects they are ignorant of. What scientist isn’t? Dembski is notoriously dishonest, and equally notorious for giving obfuscated answers that sound impressive but are essentially meaningless to an expert.
Your whining about “quote mining” is simple projection. IDists & other Creationists almost never quote except to quote-mine, so expect that all quotes, by the side of science, of the side of religious fantasy, must also be quote mines.
The Uncommon Descent regulars are a pack of bigotted, ill-mannered hooligans, notorious for trolling other online fora. People don’t get banned there for behaving badly but for the deadly sin of disagreeing with Dembski or otherwise puncturing his bloated but fragile ego.
This is how religious fantasists hope to win the day: pseudomathematics “written in jello”, ignorant pontification on biology, and crude, fart-ridden, attempts to make fun of those who point out how vacuous your position is. Dembski has neither credibility nor integrity. The only place he has on any serious campus is as an object lesson in what happens when you sacrifice both in order to further your cause — you become the laughingstock that he is.
The party continues « Further thoughts // September 24, 2007 at 8:43 pm
[...] Not a Fair Fight – “Professor Smith”, a “researcher at a middle-size public university on the Eastern seaboard” and ID supporter, attacks Abbie and the rest of “the materialists” for “attacking en masse with underhanded comments and ambushes“. It appears that “Professor Smith” didn’t bother to delve too deeply into the facts of the matter (”He was invited to speak, although the accounts that I’ve read make it sound more like an ambush“) before attacking Abbie for, among other things “underhanded tactic of poisoning the well by attacking the commenters on Dembski’s blog“. She’s invited to discuss the matter at UD, gets banned after three comments, attacked there, attacked at her blog…and dear old “Professor Smith” calls it “underhand” and “well poisoning” to mention that fact. He continues “So, either he censures comments and is criticized for hiding, or he doesn’t and is criticized for what others say?” I sure hope that Smith is simply speaking out of an ignorance he couldn’t be bothered to correct. Anyone who knows anything about UD knows that (a) they delete comments and ban participants who disagree with them; and (b) the people who attacked Abbie are the people Dembski picked to manage the blog. His final sentence is especially amusing: “It should be about science, but when you don’t have science on your side, you have to resort to something, right?” Umm, yeah, that’s pretty much how the IDists operate: since they have yet to come up with a single scientific contribution, they engage in obfuscation, misdirection and smear campaigns. Projection on the part of “Professor Smith”? [...]
professorsmith // September 28, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Tim,
Although I agree that the Judge Jones movie was in very poor taste, that doesn’t give you license to make ad hominem attacks. His argument is not wrong simply because you dislike him or the way he comports himself.
Secondly, if you are going to criticize the commenters at UD, you should also criticize the outright attacks that happen at sites like Panda’s Thumb and Pharyngula. It’s not right for anyone to conduct personal attacks and I would urge you to council both sides to conduct themselves in a civilized manner.