But the primary reason is philosophically the least noble: it would have relieved my wife and me of the personal grief and public abuse we suffered at the hands of those that attempted to snuff out the joy of my new employment and our new home.

Yes, this is perhaps the most troubling aspect of the anti-ID Movement. People need to realize that there are some critics out there who are willing in inflict real-world harm on anyone suspected of being part of "˜The Wedge.' It's a witch-hunter mentality that is rationalized with an "end justifies the means" attitude.

Let me address Ed's two concerns. First, my testimony in July 2003 involved a very narrow legal question of whether science (including biology) textbooks may include critical comments about evolution in general and neo-Darwinism in particular. My answer was "yes." This seems modest and uncontroversial to me, but I can see why someone like Ed would view my comments as aiding and abetting "creationists." But the academic enterprise should be about the pursuit of truth, even if it means that those truths may provide comfort to those with whom one disagrees. Is Ed suggesting that I should have been dishonest and not told the Board what I really thought for fear that it may help those he perceive are his political adversaries? Sorry, but that's not the way I operate. Perhaps he thinks that I should have not testified at all. Fair enough. To be honest, if I had to do it over again, I would have rejected the invitation to testify for several reasons. But the primary reason is philosophically the least noble: it would have relieved my wife and me of the personal grief and public abuse we suffered at the hands of those that attempted to snuff out the joy of my new employment and our new home.

Second, my entire project concerns the question of whether the federal cases that dealt with the Creation/Evolution cases could applied to ID, which, I argue in my book and law review articles, cannot be legitmately classified as "creationism" as that term is understood by the body of law in this area. So, I think Ed begs the question when he says that "all the cases" go against my thesis. For that is precisely the question: Do all the cases go against my thesis? I argue, "no they don't," and I offer an extended argument that effect. What Ed should do is offer a critique of my arguments rather than taking the question under scrutiny and turning it into an affirmation.

"You'll note that neither Forrest nor Gross ever showed up to defend their accusations."

Considering the way Ed was implying that Beckwith and Bradley should discuss with the critics at Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula, I'm sure he's firing up his e-mail service as we speak, explaining to Forrest and Gross why they should show up here.

Forrest and Branch have been tracking such issues for some years. They've been published by major publishing houses (places that employ fact checkers and worry about libel and slander, as opposed to Regnery).

Oh, but I know, with certainty, that Forrest can play loose with the "facts." Y'see, she wrote about me in her book that was published by a major publishing house. Her account was quite flawed and even included a bogus reference to support an ad hominem attack. Go back to Krauze's entry - where he writes, "(the claims of which have been discussed at length, both here, here, and here): Click on the first "here" and you can read my response. You'll note that neither Forrest nor Gross ever showed up to defend their accusations.

They could be wrong. You don't make the case that it is.

I don't have to. They fail to make the case that they are right. All they do is spread gossip.

There is a smell, and an appearance of favoritism for Wedgites.

Ah yes, the sloppy standards of the crazed conspiracy theorist.

Having two of the Wedgites say it ain't so, doesn't make it not so. Shoeless Joe denied the charges against him, too.

Having two WitchHunters say it is so don't make it so.

Now that I have dealt with your tangents, you need to get back to the original point. Why didn't Forrest or Branch make an effort to contact Bradley or the people who hired him? Your next reply needs to answer this question "“ anything else is flushed down the Hole.

"Forrest and Branch have been tracking such issues for some years. They've been published by major publishing houses (places that employ fact checkers and worry about libel and slander, as opposed to Regnery)."

One of the job of fact checkers is to contact the concerned parties to get their perspective on the events. Which of the people on the ID side were contacted on behalf of Forrest and Branch?

On the other hand, the only chunk of potential refutation you offer are the two letters from the participants, and of course they cannot be regarded as unbiased sources.

You failed to call Baylor, too. You have no platform to complain that anyone else failed.

Forrest and Branch have been tracking such issues for some years. They've been published by major publishing houses (places that employ fact checkers and worry about libel and slander, as opposed to Regnery).

They could be wrong. You don't make the case that it is. There is a smell, and an appearance of favoritism for Wedgites. Having two of the Wedgites say it ain't so, doesn't make it not so. Shoeless Joe denied the charges against him, too.

It is unfortunate, perhaps, that Forrest and Branch did not say that Bradley's hiring may have been purely coincidental"”they don't claim that it was part of any plot. Bradley overreacts a bit. The claim in the article is that he is a fellow of the Discovery Institute, and that he was hired at Baylor. Which of those facts does he think his department head or dean would have contradicted?

You are wrong. Forrest and Branch actually wrote:

Despite this debacle, it is evident that the Wedge still envisions Baylor as a base for in-telligent design. Dembski remains as an asso-ciate research professor, although he is slated to begin a new position at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in June 2005. His Polanyi Center associate Bruce Gordon remains as acting director of the Baylor Center for Science, Philosophy, and Religion. Baylor also hired two additional members of the Wedge, mechanical engineering professor Walter Bradley and philosopher Francis J. Beckwith.

Anyone with basic reading comprehension skills will notice this paragraph argues that the "Wedge" is trying to make Baylor a base and to support this sloppy accusation, the authors cite the hiring of Bradley.

It is ironic that Forrest and Branch end their "expose" with a warning about "power without responsibility." Where is the responsibility of Forrest and Branch? They clearly portray Bradley's hiring as "part of the Wedge," yet offer no evidence to support this reckless charge. They simply mention it in careless passing. What's even more irresponsible is that they made NO EFFORT to contact Bradley before casting him in this light.

It is unfortunate, perhaps, that Forrest and Branch did not say that Bradley's hiring may have been purely coincidental — they don't claim that it was part of any plot. Bradley overreacts a bit. The claim in the article is that he is a fellow of the Discovery Institute, and that he was hired at Baylor. Which of those facts does he think his department head or dean would have contradicted?

Witch hunt? That is a statement of facts. They may be embarrassing to Bradley and Beckwith. Facts are stubborn things, as President Reagan was fond of noting. It's still true.

But I am curious about Bradley's claim to have done "work in the origin of life." Surely, as the world-class scientist he claims to be, he knows the path to the appropriate journals to make such work available to researchers. And yet, I can find no such reference in any index.

Besides his speeches to church groups, what has he done? What does he claim as work in origins of life? Where is it published? If anything, Bradley stands accused by Forrest and Branch of being a supporter and advocate of intelligent design. To that, he confesses.

Dr. Beckwith's claim that the Constitution allows intelligent design to be taught in schools rests on an unevidenced and incorrect assumption that ID will at some future date produce some real science. Absent this showing of real science product from ID, however, it is poor legal advice tantamount to malpractice to suggest a public school could teach what has been ruled to be religious belief as science, in a science class or anywhere else. Dr. Beckwith is not an attorney and so is not bound by the ethical canons lawyers must follow. In recent posts at Panda's Thumb he had appeared (to me) to back away from claiming that ID is science — these posts come after his letter to Academe, and so we hope his views remain as a non-advocate of ID.

The Dawson Center was founded to study and celebrate religious freedom, especially the policies American Baptist have traditionally supported, including the Constitutional policies that are usually summarized as separation of church and state. Dr. Beckwith's comments on biology textbooks suggested his views do not support the center's views (it certainly the thrust of his comments to the State Board of Education in 2003 — the comments that caused the Dawson family to question Beckwith's appointment at Baylor).

I don't think anyone questions that Dr. Beckwith is well published. What is questioned is the claim that teaching ID is constitutional, when all cases close to the point have gone the other way, and the claim we hope he has abandoned that ID is science.

Dr. Beckwith has, from time to time, made forays to forums where scientists are pleased to engage him in discussion. Dr. Bradley has not done so, to my knowledge. They would find many people happy to discuss ID with them at Panda's Thumb, or at Pharyngula, or at Talkorigins. They would get an even warmer reception were they to bring a hypothesis that might lay a foundation for serious study of intelligent design.

The door is open, but ID advocates must walk through it.

What is particularly galling is that the authors never bothered to contact me or my department head or dean to inquire about this matter.

That seems to be the pattern among the witch-hunters. Do they fail to verify their accounts before publishing because a) they have a guilty conscience or b) they don't want to risk losing a good piece of propaganda?