The Return of Lawrence Van Dyke?

If you’ve been reading my blog for a really, really long time you probably remember Lawrence Van Dyke. Way back in early 2004, only a few months after I started the blog, I got involved in a fight between Brian Leiter and Van Dyke over a book review that the latter did in the Harvard Law Review of a pro-Intelligent Design book. Van Dyke proved to be almost entirely clueless in that exchange. He’s now a candidate for the Montana Supreme Court.

"Me previously:At some point conservative Christians may stop defending Roy Moore’s predatory behavior. Artor responds:No, ..."

And Two More Women Come Forward ..."
"He'll probably revive the War on Christmas rhetoric next year, knowing his viewers will likely ..."

Bakker Declares Victory in Mythical War ..."
"I'm always amused by the special species of troll that claims fake military service. First ..."

The Gateway Pundit Falls for Another ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • D. C. Sessions

    Links? This is kinda close to home.

  • Michael Heath

    I found Ed’s second blog post fisking Lawrence Van Dyke: http://stcynic.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_archive.html. This link has multiple blog posts so you need to scroll down a bit to get to the relevant post.

    There’s a link to Ed’s first response in this blog post, but it now goes nowhere.

    The StCynic blog did have comments at one time, here we see none for all the blog posts on the above-linked page.

  • John Pieret

    D.C. Sessions:

    Here is a post at Panda’s Thumb that should get you into it:

    http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/04/leiter-v-vandyk.html

    Calling him a “candidate” is a bit much … more like paid Koch stooge. Right wing watch has been following the Montana Supreme Court race.

  • colnago80

    Re Michael Heath @ #2

    Van Dyke’s multiple citing of Dumbski was rather telling. Although this exchange took place before the Dover trial, his actions leading up to the trial are most telling. Dumbski bragged that his testimony relative to information theory would devastate the Theory of Evolution and discredit evolutionary biologists. However, when he found out that Prof. Jeffrey Shallit, someone whose expertise in information theory as measured by peer reviewed publications greatly exceeded his own, he showed his true colors by chickening out and declining to testify for the defense. He did this knowing that Shallit would completely discredit him as an “expert” on information theory. As Brayton points out in the article you cited, Dumbski, in addition to being a chickenshit is also a congenital prevaricator, in the tradition of Duane Gish.

  • tomh

    @ #1

    The Great Falls Tribune ran an article last month about it. I thought the reporter did a pretty good job, in that he tracked down Brian Leiter for some quotes.