Dembski doesn't understand simple things
Billy D. has been deleting his trackbacks and comments, because that's how creationists handle their critics, by hiding them away. It doesn't make the critique go away, but it allows Billy's readers to imagine that their hero is unassailable.
Billy doesn't even bother denying this:
Uncommon Descent » Shallit Yet Again — P.S.:
Among the many posts I’ve deleted from the previous thread are those vindicating Shallit on the grounds that because the Thomas More Law Center fired me as an expert witness (citing a conflict of interest with FTE, the publisher of the textbook under dispute — i.e., Of Pandas and People), it was no longer necessary for Shallit to be an expert witness. But in that case why was he deposed at all? I was to be deposed the second week of June (which was then cancelled when TMLC fired me). Shallit was deposed several weeks later. Clearly, the ACLU wanted him to discredit me and my work regardless of whether I was an expert witness.Perhaps they thought Dembski might come back on board?
Here's something Billy doesn't quite grasp – the scientific method. He proposed a hypothesis here, that the ACLU wanted to discredit him regardless of whether he testified.
If so, what prediction can we make?
I predict that if they intended to discredit Dembski "regardless of whether [Billy] was an expert witness," they'll call Shallit as an expert witness despite Billy's absence. If they don't call him, that hypothesis is falsified.
But since he didn't testify, which was the point of Billy's original post, that isn't the ACLU's goal, and the whole thing is irrelevant. Billy is just out to smear a scientist who knows more than he does.