The Judge Jones Flash Animation: The Decline and Fall of Intelligent Design.
Oh dear, Bill.
Keiths, a commenter at AtBC, described by Demski as "A disgruntled former UD commenter", (maybe because Dembski assumes Keiths was annoyed for being banned from Uncommon Descent for posting polite, coherent but inconvenient observations) spotted some one's familiar "chipmunked" voice in the Flash clip. Bill's sorry attempt at (would it be) satire has now come to the attention of a wider world, here, here, here and here.
But Bill, think about this. You are complaining that Judge Jones' ruling was unfair, but the judge was only able to consider evidence presented to him. You, Bill are the Isaac Newton of Information Theory. You wrote the book on Intelligent Design. Michael Behe did his best, but what did you do, Bill? You withdrew from the case, denying Judge Jones the opportunity to weigh your evidence. You must now regret that missed opportunity, I guess.
Oh dear, Bill!
7 comments:
Falan, your link to the Dawkins piece doesn't work!
The whole brouhaha over at Uncommon Descent is breathtaking in its inanity and resentment.
There are a few lawyers there who are attempting to explain that what Jones did was entirely kosher by contemporary legal standards, but the crowd demands blood.
The intelligent design folks are rapidly becoming their own worst enemies.
In any event, I find it telling that the DI has insisted on weighing in on a case that they themselves refused to participate in.
Thanks, Charden, fixed.
(It should be noted that Bill Dembski didn't testify because he insisted on having a lawyer present and Thomas Moore refused, because that organization and ID in general are adverse to attorneys, don't you know! [wink!])
What a mess!
Poor, dear Bill:
Christmas present for you. Get out. Cut your losses and get out of the ID movement. Desert the sinking, no-thinking ship, honey.
Imagine writing a tell-all book about your reconversion back to reality. Holy crap, what a scandal, what publicity! That's what you want, isn't it? It would lift you out of that depressing little town with the loser Bible college and into the big time once more. We are all waiting, and you know I'm standing by with a special shimmy for you. Make me proud. ;-)
Because if you really want your life's work to end up as merely the forgotten answer to a Trivia Pursuit question, that's your choice.
Bill's own explanation for his non-apearance at Harrisburg:
(Barbara)Forrest accuses me of withdrawing from the trial. Here are the facts: I’ve been the academic editor of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) since 1997. FTE is the publisher of Pandas, the book in question in the Dover trial. Several weeks before I was to be deposed, my boss at FTE, Jon Buell, asked that I have an additional attorney representing FTE’s interests at the deposition. Moreover, I learned that Stephen Meyer was being permitted by Dick Thompson, the head of the Thomas More Law Center, to have an additional attorney present at his deposition to represent Discovery’s interests (even with that privilege, Meyer decided not to be deposed). Given that FTE had, in my view, more to lose than Discovery in this case, I asked the Thomas More Law Center to extend me the same courtesy that they were extending to Meyer. They refused. By this time FTE was insisting that I have an attorney present. This put me in a difficult position with my employer, so I told Thomas More I would allow myself to be deposed only if they permitted an attorney representing FTE’s interest to be present. It was at that point that they removed me as an expert witness. I was frankly looking forward to being deposed. As it is, we can expect there to be future trials where Forrest and I cross swords.
From Alan's OP:
You, Bill are the Isaac Newton of Information Theory
I think he's more like Isaac's younger brother, Fig.
Kisses to the Mrs., Alan!
Happy New Year,
May you all be the recipients of Molly's Wish
Happy New Year to you, Lou.
Post a Comment