Monday, December 18, 2006

FLASH! Dembski Will be Paid for his Expert Advice in Dover

I'm not making this up. Denyse O'Leary announces that the Thomas More Law Center will pay Bill Dembski for over 100 hours of expert advice on the Kitzmiller case in Dover PA.

Discerning readers might recall that this is the case where the IDiots were blown out of the water. Not a single one of their points was accepted by the judge. I wonder what the going rate is for IDiotic experts?


  1. The original article is dated June 25, 2005. I take it the 'Update' part is the undated first paragraph, in parentheses? O'Leary says, He and the Thomas More Law Center, which fired him as an expert witness, appear to have resolved their differences. If she says so. Whether TMLC fired Dembski, or whether he withdrew is a distinction I do not have the information to resolve, but Dembski's "expert report" was withdrawn from the trial and he did not testify.

    I wonder if doing voice-overs and farting noises for animation pays better than writing expert reports?

  2. In O'Leary's original article, she claims, "Discovery Institute, of which Bill Dembski is a fellow, does not support teaching intelligent design theory at the schools level. That’s part of the background to this dispute. In Discovery’s view, ID theory is in an early stage of development and properly belongs in university common rooms, defenses of theses, journals, et cetera. The science information that gave rise to it only emerged in the last thirty years, and was stalled by narrow Darwinism."

    This is not so. As Ken Miller points out in a recent e-mail response to Dembski, "Or, even better, your own DC spokesman for the Discovery Institute (Mark Ryland) claiming that the DI had “never” advocated the teaching of ID in schools, followed by Richard Thompson, in his own voice, waving a copy of Steve Meyer’s book which advocated exactly that? I’ve got that last one on a DVD if you like. You’d love it, Bill - Richard brought down the house at the American Enterprise Institute with that one."

  3. Yeah, the update isn't new, it was from June or July 2005. But it's still durn funny.

  4. Nothing new there, some of the hired liars retained by criminal defense attorneys to attack DNA evidence are every bit as well-informed and effective as Billy boy, but they also make out like bandits. A few particularly dishonest and prolific ones make a good deal more in "expert" witness fees than they do from their academic salaries. And the dumbass lawyers keep paying them no matter how often they're shot down in court.