Now I am bent out of shape

Jack Krebs posted Entry 1911 on January 13, 2006 11:03 AM.
Trackback URL: http://degas.fdisk.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1906

Well, I wasn’t “bent out of shape,” but now I am.

DaveScot over at Uncommon Dissent is the target of my ire. Let me tell you why.

This morning I saw that DaveScot had commented on my recent Panda’s Thumb post on my offer to discuss ID with Dembski at KU in a few weeks. Here’s what DaveScot wrote,

Jack Krebs at Panda’s Thumb is all bent out of shape because he wanted to present an opposing view alongside Bill Dembski. He then implies that Bill declined because Bill’s afraid of Jack or intimidated or something.

Excuse me, Jack, but you demanding an opportunity to present alongside Bill Dembski and calling him chicken for refusing is like the Oskaloosa High School Football Team demanding to play the University of Texas Longhorns and saying the Longhorns are chickens for refusing.

Sorry Jack, but you’re just not in the same league as Bill.

I am a registered Uncommon Dissent user, so I posted a comment (which I have attempted to reproduce below.) Thirty minutes later, upon arriving at work, I see that my comment was deleted.

Now I know that they delete stuff over there at the drop of the hat, and they’ve banned people over flame wars. I administer the KCFS forums, and I know the problems that can ensue.

But my post was not like that. DaveScot made comments about me, and I responded in a reasonable manner.

But still he deleted my post.

So now I am bent out of shape, and I am calling someone “chicken”: I’m calling DaveScot “chicken.” Maybe also “hypocritical.” Possibly … well, you decide.

Why should he be afraid to let my comment stand? More broadly, how can a movement that claims to be thwarted in their attempts to enter mainstream conversation about the important issues that they want to address constantly refuse to discuss things? – no comments at all on the DI blog, deletion by whim at Uncommon Dissent?

So I repeat a point from my earlier Panda’s Thumb post: “What are they afraid of?”

For what it’s worth, as best I can recollect, here is the comment I made at Uncommon Dissent that was deleted. Obviously this isn’t completely accurate, because I didn’t keep a copy of the original. But at least it will let you know approximately what I said. Judge for yourself why DaveScot didn’t like it.

Hmmm. Could you explain where I “demanded” anything? Or why you think I am “bent out of shape”? And I certainly didn’t call Dembski “chicken.”

I think your posts would have more credibility if you didn’t exaggerate.

What I did say was,

” On the other hand, I do believe that they really don’t want to talk in public about the things I wanted to talk about. They want the façade of credibility for ID by setting it against evolution – against some well-know biology professor like Krishtalka, but they don’t want (and I find this ironic) to actually discuss the issue of Christianity and evolution in front of a group of Christians. What are they afraid of here?”

I believe that the discussion that should be taking place should be about the pros of ID versus the cons of ID, not about the pros of ID versus evolution.

As to your remarks about the school I teach at: I am proud of my long career as a public school educator. However, I have education and skills that go beyond those of my paying day job. Given that it is ideas and the ability to articulate them to others that ultimately count, I think I am qualified to discuss ID with Dembski. And for what it’s worth, given that I have an undergraduate degree in anthropology, I think I have more official credentials in science than Dembski does. He (and others in the movement) have certainly not hesitated to critique evolution without having academic credentials in biology.

But thanks for referencing my Panda’s Thumb post.

Comment #71057

Posted by The Sanity Inspector on January 13, 2006 11:22 AM (e) (s)

Are you sure your comment successfully posted in the first place?

Comment #71059

Posted by bill on January 13, 2006 11:27 AM (e) (s)

Don’t despair, Jack. Think of DaveScot as Hyde to Dembski’s Jekyll.

DaveScot never gets it right. I know Longhorns. Longhorns are friends of mine. And, Dembski is no Longhorn.

It would be more like the Oskaloosa High School football team challenging Southern Baptist Theological Seminary to a game and……oh, wait a second. SBTS doesn’t have a team.

Well, no matter, Dembski doesn’t have a theory, either.

As we say here in Texas, Dembski is all hat and no cattle. DaveScot doesn’t even have a hat.

Comment #71060

Posted by Wislu Plethora on January 13, 2006 11:30 AM (e) (s)

Calling DaveScot a chicken does an extreme disservice to chickens, imo.

Comment #71065

Posted by Mike Walker on January 13, 2006 11:36 AM (e) (s)

Jack, Just went over there - your post is present, in full.

Comment #71069

Posted by theonomo on January 13, 2006 11:38 AM (e) (s)

Calling DaveScot a chicken does an extreme disservice to chickens, imo.

OUCH! Brilliant! What wit! Touche, touche, TOUCHE!!!

Comment #71070

Posted by Mr Christopher on January 13, 2006 11:40 AM (e) (s)

The Dave Scott blog is probably one of the best advertisers for PT. Does a day go by where he does not link to an article here?

And Dave Scott lying or distorting reality is no great shock. What intelligent design creationism cultist does not lie to further their theistic agenda whose governing goals include:

1) To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

2) To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

I mean, does that sound like the goals of any legitimate scientific organization you have ever heard of? That sound more like extreem religious propaganda to me.

Clearly they (intelligent design creationists like Dave Scott and William Dembski) have a religious agenda and view modern science as destructive. Furthermore, simply reading Dave Scott’s comments on his and Dembski’s common poop blog suggests he is very likely mental.

Personally I hope Dave has even more to say about anything PT related at his/Dembski’s intelligent design creationism blog. Whether it is a lie or not is moot. Reason will stand or fall on its own. Keep sending intelligent design creationists to this site, Dave Scott. Maybe some of them will see through the intelligent design charade as a result.

Comment #71073

Posted by BWE on January 13, 2006 11:45 AM (e) (s)

It really doesn’t help to get bent out of shape. Stress, high blood pressure etc.
If you want to enter the PR war with them (and kudos for being willing) you will get some mud on you now and then- they do play dirty, that’s the only way they can win. Man that last statement I made sounds smug. But that’s the problem, how can I not sound smug? I mean, I ask them a question about their IDeas and they attack me for the question. I do have some questions. I always start with plate tectonics and the fossil record. They don’t answer it unless they are out and out creationists in which case god put fossils of common ancestors to diverged species on opposite banks (shorelines). Or they say that that is “micro-evolution not macro” or whatever. It’s a moving target. It’s frustrating. But relax, there’s no point getting bent out of shape. You’re born, you live, then you die. There are many worthwhile things to occupy yourself with including science education but it’s all just a fun pastime really.

Comment #71080

Posted by Mike Walker on January 13, 2006 11:49 AM (e) (s)

In response to Jack, DaveScot—all riled up—lets fly with another of his ridiculous comments:

Biology is a cross between pipetting and stamp collecting.

So, since this is William Demsbki’s official web-blog, are we to assuming this is his official opinion of biology and those who practice it?

Good on ya Bill, thanks to sycophants like DaveScot, your credibility is sinking lower than even we expected.

Comment #71082

Posted by BWE on January 13, 2006 11:50 AM (e) (s)

And religious wingnuts aren’t the only absurd thing out there. I mean, they are certainly absurd but have you looked at politics lately? Have you seen a modern porno? What about reality tv? We are absurd as a species because we have to consider, qualify, and categorize things as we eat, poop and procreate. When you realize the difference between the world and our ideas about the world, all we can do is laugh.

Comment #71088

Posted by Lixivium on January 13, 2006 11:53 AM (e) (s)

Would you really be surprised if DaveScot did delete your comment? I mean, DaveScot is the guy who proactive bans people like Mr. Christopher for posting anti-ID stuff on OTHER BLOGS.

(From the link)

The deal with this blog, since I’ve given it over to my friends, is to build community and “feel the love.” Unfortunately, that requires recalcitrant elements to be purged. That’s a price I’m willing to pay.

~ William Dembski

So there we have it. I think that’s as close as we’ll get to Dembski actually admitting that Uncommon Dissent is really just one big circle-jerk.

Comment #71090

Posted by Harq al-Ada on January 13, 2006 11:56 AM (e) (s)

I’m confused. Why are you blaming Davescot for Dembski deleting a post? I thought Uncommon Dissent was Dembski’s blog.

Comment #71098

Posted by Lixivium on January 13, 2006 12:02 PM (e) (s)

Harq al-Ada wrote:

I’m confused. Why are you blaming Davescot for Dembski deleting a post? I thought Uncommon Dissent was Dembski’s blog.

Maybe you missed it, but not long ago Dembski announced he was shelving his blog, only to bring it back as a group blog. DaveScot is now one of the mods, and from what I’ve seen, he’s a bit itchy with the banning finger.

Comment #71100

Posted by mark on January 13, 2006 12:05 PM (e) (s)

DaveScot wrote:

Sorry Jack, but you’re just not in the same league as Bill.

Who is in the same league as Bill?

DaveScot, Baron von Munchausen, Bill O’Reilly, Alibi Ike, and the Iraqi fellow who kept the press “informed” during the attack on Baghdad come to mind. A regular Bush League.

Comment #71108

Posted by Andrew McClure on January 13, 2006 12:09 PM (e) (s)

So.. the running score seems to be that Dembski will

1. Refuse to debate people
2. Hold “debates” in which he claims that people refuse to debate him
3. Refuse to let the people who are offering to debate him participate in the debate from (2)
4. Have his blog lackeys insult the people he refused to debate in (3) if they speak about it publicly

Have I got the situation right here?

The impression I keep having of Dembski was that he set up his “uncommon descent” blog with the goal of reaching out to the internet to proselytize, to convert the heathens and remake the internet in his own image. Unfortunately it just seems to be having the opposite effect, he’s being remade in the image of the internet. He’s becoming a blogger. He’s being gradually sucked out of his previous role of nationally recognized P.R. tool of a well-financed conservative Christian P.R. group, and more and more into just being a common net.kook. I’m expecting this to get worse now that his website has largely become his photo followed by the writings of people who have always been net.kooks.

Mr. Krebs, this entire situation must be terribly unpleasant for you, but I guess one way to look at this is that if you or Kansas Citizens for Science wind up involved in a court case over the new Kansas educational standards, you can hope that your opponents there will be as transparent as your opponents on the internet…

Jack, Just went over there - your post is present, in full.

Yup, it is. Now the question is, does this mean Mr. Krebs was confused and the post wasn’t deleted, or does it mean DaveScot un-deleted it after reading Krebs’ post on pandasthumb? From my understanding of the software running at Uncommon Descent no posts are ever totally deleted, just hidden from public view.

Comment #71116

Posted by steve s on January 13, 2006 12:23 PM (e) (s)

In the newest post, DaveScot smears Ed Brayton, so don’t feel alone.

Anyway, the real purpose of Uncommon Pissant is to be a comedy train, and that comedy train just keeps on rollin. Here’s a comment today:

#

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

Comment by Charliecrs — January 13, 2006 @ 11:23 am

Comment #71117

Posted by RBH on January 13, 2006 12:24 PM (e) (s)

Bear in mind that this is the same William A. Dembski who in December accepted Patricia Princehouse’s invitation to put up or shut up at Case Western and then somehow didn’t appear. His excuses were made by Casey Luskin. It appears that the Disco Institute is keeping Dembski on a shorter leash than heretofore. Perhaps his employment at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary makes it harder to sustain the fiction that “there ain’t no religion here, folks! Just plain old science.”

RBH

Post a Comment

Use KwickXML formatting to markup your comments: <b>, <i>, <u> <s>, <quote author="...">, <url href="...">, etc. You may need to refresh before you will see your comment.




Remember personal info?