GCT
Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
Jim Downard writes Dembski an email to ask about his involvement with Coulter's book. Dembski posts it and calls Jim smarmy. Dembski's little fan club all make their pokes at Downard*. So, Jim Downard writes another email and Dembski posts it again.
(*edited to read "Downard" instead of "Dembski".)
Here is what Downard said:
| Quote | Dear Bill
You take “all responsibility for any errors” in Coulter’s evolution chapters. Your words, not mine. Coulter has written what she has written. Either you are willing to defend each of her published assertions, or you may repudiate them. You have done neither.
Thus the questions I asked remain. As amply evidenced by her prior works, Coulter can get confused entirely on her own. But it is also legitimate to wonder to what extent her published antievolution statements due to your proud tutoring?
In my effort to resolve this point, I apologize for having employed specific terminology in my letter as though I were communicating with someone who was scientifically literate. My mistake. I wish I could avoid such highfallutin language, but unfortunately words actually mean things, and it is occasionally necessary to use them when the subject is something that directly relates to them. Much like those symbols required for precise discourse in the math biz. You remember that.
Perhaps I should have kept things on the melodramatic level of your blog buddies. “I take umbrage, sir! I am an insufferable smart ass, and refuse to accept demotion to mere smarminess. A duel at sunrise. Choice of weapons, scholarly pen.”
Once your brain cools down from that “host of terms and concepts” that came to your mind whilst reading my annoying affront to your repose, what I had to say about what Coulter had to say is readily available to you at Talk Reason. Should you feel disposed to defend any statement or repudiate them, in whatever venue you may elect, don’t let my smarminess stop you.
In the spirit of those popular competition shows on TV, I will even throw down a challenge. See if you can get to your response before I get to the substance of it. Topic: the “mammalian developmental biology” I put on my list. Clue: it was sandwiched between dentary bones and Probainognathus. And with due apologies to lucID, this involves real developmental biology, nothing “imaginary” about it. As it happens, though, unless you mentioned the information to her (which I suspect you could not have), Coulter didn’t get to be wrong here because of anything she might have heard from you. She could only have got her misinformation from one specific source, written by someone known to you, who was objectively familiar with it, but didn’t write of it either because they didn’t recognize its significance (or did, and suppressed it).
Finally, I do appreciate the way in which you elected to respond to my email. By posting it in the public domain for all to see, without answering any of its points, and by the rib-nudging grunting of your commentators, you illustrate very neatly the depth of care and studiousness you are capable of contributing to scholarly discourse.
In the words of “The Closer”: Thank You.
Jim (Insufferable Smart Ass) Downard |
I think Dembski really got pwned on that one, especially since he was dumb enough to post the reply.
Oh, and here's DaveTard's take on it.
| Quote | Jim writes like a girly man.
‘Nuff said.
Comment by DaveScot — July 15, 2006 @ 1:59 am |
Wow, DT. You're such a tough guy.
|
