Writing at the Darwinist website Panda’s Thumb, mathematician Jason Rosenhouse accuses me of being insincere in my stated wish to see a dialogue. In brief, he wrote an anti-ID book for Cambridge U. Press that our colleague, his fellow mathematician William Dembski, reviewed. Earlier this week I publicly and privately invited Jason to reply at Evolution News. He immediately wrote back that his “last word” was an already published post at Panda’s Thumb. Fair enough. 

It wasn’t quite his last word, though. Now he complains that I haven’t alerted readers about his response on the subject quickly enough, thus that “it’s almost as if [I] didn’t really want to have an exchange of ideas.” And he reveals that “close to two days have passed.” Indeed, it’s now been three days since I wrote to him, whereas he had written back to me, he says, in a mere eight minutes! Sorry for not being on your timetable, Jason. I’m not sure what the payoff was supposed to be in my asking for an exchange if I secretly wished to avoid one. In any event, for those who would like to follow the back-and-forth as it stands, here it is:

• Rosenhouse’s book.

• Dembski’s review.

• Rosenhouse’s response and “last word” at Panda’s Thumb.

I encourage any and all to purchase and read Jason’s book (a bit on the pricey side at $74.99 hardback, $39.99 paper), read Dembski’s review, and Jason’s counter.