Let's get this PEH show on the road. A Petition

This was the response to a recent Potm nomination for John A. Davision in the Showcase forum. I don't know whether you have been following the 'Showcase' thread, but one thing is apparent to me: the folk who I would consider to be far more knowledgeable than me on the scientific aspects of evolution have not, with minimal exception, taken up Johns challenge.My personal view is not that John is necessarily right - my lack of deep(er) science skills forces me into limbo in this area. It may be that an inefficient and cumbersome weapon of large calibre is, by virtue of sheer destructive power, able to outgun modern, sophisticated small arms fire here. I don't know..It seems that one way to find out is to deploy that which might be considered, by most (given the frequency of their mention here), as the 'heavy artillery'. To name but a few: William Dembski and Richard Dawkins. John himself is requesting that. Whatever your viewpoint, I'm sure that such scenario would be considered advantageous to ones own position.How to go about it?. I propose petition. A petition from us here at EvC.John says he has emailed both William Dembski and Richard Dawkins with respect to challenging his position - but without positive response. If he has a more direct line of communication than I have been able to accomplish via a brief search, then he is free to publish on this thread - if he considers that information to be publishable in open forum.I would suggest waiting a short while for Johns/Admin response before mailing. Let us not go off half-cocked. Perhaps Admin could flag this message to John more directly that I am able to, for instance.The communications channels which I propose are:dembski@discovery.org - for W. Dembskijcatalano@si.rr.com - for R. Dawkins (on the basis of the link below)Richard Dawkins' homepage at Oxford UniversityTo save time for all who may be interested in petitioning both Dembski and Dawkins, I have prepared the following standard letter for your consideration. Suggestions as to improvement (especially by way of enticement) are welcome - so long as they maintain a neutral stance.

quote:

---

Dear (let your worldview influence the recipient of your petition)

​

John A. Davison is currently occupying a largely 'standby' position in the 'Showcase' thread over at . This link connects to his first post in that thread

​

http://EvC Forum: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis -->EvC Forum: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis

​

this links to his challenge to you:

​

http://EvC Forum: June, 2006, Posts of the Month -->EvC Forum: June, 2006, Posts of the Month

​

John has agreed to partake in a 'debate-by-invite' involving an argument entitled: "Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis". This hypothesis directly contradicts your own point of view.

​

For whatever reason, there has been to date, little by way of take-up on Johns challenge. This at a site dedicated, in significant part, to the issue of evolution. John has stated, on a number of occasions, that an invite has been extended to yourself to debate him on the described hypothesis. He says that that invite has not yet, for various reasons, been satisfactorily taken up.

​

Given my interest in this topic - and the myriad of consequences that follow on from it, I would appreciate it if you would consider attending to Johns challenge. Should you not yet be aware, EvC is a reasonably well-regulated and disciplined forum where diverse viewpoints enjoy relative sanctity of expression. The issues at the core of such a debate are of interest to any considerate person and I would welcome your considering partaking in Johns challenge to you.

​

Yours etc.

---

Good god - why on earth is a busy man like Richard Dawkins going to spend his time debating somebody here?Hello! Reality is calling!

I await your petition to enter the fray which inlcudes John A. Davison. Until then, I take your comments to be those of someone who knows not of which they speak

Davidson's a joke, and so is his "hypothesis". It's supported by no discernable evidence - or even sound reasoning. It appeals to anti-evolutionists only because it has a bunch of science-sounding words and because Davidson peppers his prose with insults against "Darwinism" and "Darwinists", like they do.My respect for Dawkins would plumment immediately if he were to take time out from his busy schedule of doing work to kick an old senile man. Can anybody imagine anything more ridiculous?It's nice of Percy to start his little charity project for creationists - nice because it pulls all that garbage out of the real science threads. Like the sign at the landfill it gives me ample warning to avoid the refuse collecting within.

Have you been drinking? Is that jumble of words intended to make sense in english?I am saying ZIP about Davidson or any of his "theories" - I am simply saying that an Oxford professor has more interesting and frankly important things to do with his time (especially with the RAE on the horizon) than come and debate with someone who's expertise consists of being locked in the funnyfarm side of a debate forum.Edited by CK, : No reason given.Edited by CK, : No reason given.

Your lack of participation in the relevant thread is noted.

Your lack of participation in the relevant thread is noteworthy

edit: great gag but off topic.What's that got to do with the fact that it's a collosus waste of time for an oxford prof to be debating here when he could be well.. working? turning out papers? ?Edited by CK, : No reason given.

Oh, I'm sorry - were you under the mistaken impression that that thread was the only time JAD has proffered his "Semi-meotic hypothesis" (or whatever he calls it nowadays) on this board?Believe me when I tell you that, having completely rebutted his nonsense in the past, I didn't see any need to get up in there and do it again. Before your time, though. I can understand how you might get the impression that JAD just dropped a bomb that we don't have any way to respond to. Certainly he's not honest, or sane, enough to disabuse you of that notion.

Your lack of participation in the relevant thread is noteworthy

hum it's not quite as catchy a catchphrase as Ray's "Inability to refute, inability to refute" but it's getting there.Maybe you could work the word BRING in there somewhere?

Your lack of participation in the relevant thread is noted. You presume to be invited - without having sought same

That says it all about John A. Davison The Scientist. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

To be fair John has a long history here at EvC and it may be that many of thoes youthink should be taking up John's challenge have in fact already had fairly long discussion with JAD on his hypothesis. Sadly some of his threads have been lost due to strange computery things, but tere are still a few in the database and if you look at them you will see that what is on the 'Showcase' PEH thread is exactly the same as it was during those threads. We even had JAD's PEH paper which he recently had published hosted in HTMl on the website from when he brought it to us previously.John has been banned and reinstated several times so it is understandable that many regard him as a recidivist, especially as he revels in the notoriety of banning.Just reading his posts surely you can see that far from wanting to discuss his hypothesis he either wants others to attack his hypothesis or to defend Darwinism from the criticisms he makes of it.I think that if Dembski wanted to interact with JAD he would surely have done so when JAD was posting regularly to Dembski's own blog or on ISCID?TTFN,WK

This thread seems about as pointless as any we have had in awhile. iano's suggestion stands. If anyone wants to follow up on it they can try to recruit folk.In the meantime, nite all.

---