In a comment on a post of mine, Blue Devil Knight issued a complaint about some tactics that William Dembski admitted to using. Dembski had written:
I’m not going to give away all my secrets, but one thing I sometimes do is post on the web a chapter or section from a forthcoming book, let the critics descend, and then revise it so that what appears in book form preempts the critics’ objections. An additional advantage with this approach is that I can cite the website on which the objections appear, which typically gives me the last word in the exchange. (the quote is from here).
Blue Devil Knight replied: That quote makes me sick: Dembski dresses himself in academic cloth and language, but is really a sneaky manipulative witness to Jesus (and after having read his books I know his arguments are as specious as the one about indexicals above). This kind of dissemblance sickens me: talking of 'secrets', as if it is some kind of espionage where you are manipulating, rather than directly interacting with your interlocutor in good faith. Despicable. Even if your interlocutor has a good counterargument, at least you get the last word because it is in a book (spurious, incidentally).
Now I find Dembski's comments a little distateful myself; there's nothing wrong with putting ideas on a website that are in rougher shape than what you find in peer-reviewed published work, but I must admit I would not want to talk about getting the last word. You never get the last word of course.
At the same time, while I have run into some pretty harsh criticisms of my own work, but I think I've been pretty good at keeping things civilized with people who disagree with me. But the advocates of ID, unless they are lying about what they have experienced, have really been facing an inquisition from some of Darwin's rottweilers. Consider this post by Francis Beckwith on Right Reason, who has defended not the philosophical adequacy of the arguments for ID, but rather the constitutional permissibility of teaching ID in public schools.
Is this a case where the Darwinists should remove the log in their own eye so they can see clearly enough to remove the speck from their opponents' eyes?