PZ Is a Chicken: WDAY Responds

This is an update to Epic Evidence of Ray's Dishonesty. It provides further evidence and commentary:


As pasted in the link above, I sent Ben and Jim (the hosts) at WDAY an email inquiring about whether or not they had informed him. They kindly responded today and told me I could reproduce it on any blogs where discussion about Ray's comment is taking place:

For why we decided to change formats, we came to the conclusion that being we are a caller driven show, while having both Mr. Comfort and Dr. Myers on at the same time would be entertaining, neither would have been able to fully develop their respective positions, or take many questions from callers. We decided this Monday afternoon. We attempted contacting Mr. Comfort, with no success, and when I spoke to Dr. Myers he was gracious enough to move his interview to Wednesday morning. We sent several emails to Mr. Comfort (actually his assistant) with the changes to the format, and the emails were eventually responded to.


It is possible, however, that the information in the emails to Mr. Comfort’s assistant was not passed in full to Mr. Comfort. It is also possible that one of the emails we sent to Mr. Comfort’s assistant was lost due to the problems we’ve experienced here with our email server this week (which has been an absolute nightmare). This could account for the misinformation that Mr. Comfort is stating on his blog (or wherever he is posting it, I have not looked at your links yet). I will email his assistant this afternoon and try to straighten this out.

We learn a few things from this:

1. Here the hosts clearly indicate, for a second time, that the change of format was their request.
2. The change was made a day before the appearance... not at the last moment, as Ray claimed.
3. The emails sent to Ray on Monday were eventually responded to, so he knows that the change was the station's request and also done a day ahead of time.
   

When a Christian commenter to his blog demanded to know if PZ or Ray was lying about whose idea it was for the change, Ray responds:

Patti...Ten minutes before the debate, the station called and said that the debate was off, and that it would just be me being interviewed. I wasn't given any explanation at all. It was strange.

I have two points of commentary to bring this to a close:

Calling the hosts liars.
Rufus, in his reply to the above, noted accurately:

Ray, which as I said is 100% irrelevant to the substance of the appearance by Dr. Myers. If you were duped in any way it was by the station and not by PZ.

Ray acknowledges that he was informed ten minutes before the interview (and then subsequently acknowledges the emails). He then decides that, with the station telling him that they had to change the format, he should baselessly accusing PZ of chickening out? Let's reread his initial comments:

you mean the guy who was a no-show at the last moment. He was supposed to debate me. I wonder why he didn't show up? Do I smell chicken?

Nonetheless, whenever a reader writes that it was the station's idea to change the format and then another poster actually posts the producer's announcement of why they changed it, Ray simply replies:

Sure...

Not only does he call PZ a liar that it was the show's idea to change it, he calls the show itself liars. The host, who was nothing but courteous to Ray, is a liar by Ray's book. The claim is either that:

1. PZ requested the change, or
2. The station requested the change.

Both PZ and the station said that it was #2. Ray, though, continues to say that it was #1, even after having both PZ's and the station's comments pointed out to him.

Why is PZ even afraid?
Let's not forget the accusation, though: PZ chickened out as he was afraid to discuss evolution with Ray Comfort. PZ's field is evolutionary developmental biology, and has a PhD in biology. And we're supposed to believe that PZ chickened out debating Ray, a person with no formal education in biology, on biology and intelligent design?

What was Ray's one and only proof of intelligent design? The Creation implies a Creator canard:

I say, "When you look at a painting, how do you know absolutely that there was a painter?" Well, you'll say, "The painting exists. Paintings don't happen by themselves."

When you look at a building, how do you know 100% that there was a builder? Well, the building is absolute proof there was a builder. You cannot have a building without a builder.

And Creation is 100% absolute proof that there was a Creator. You cannot have a Creation without a Creator.

I destroyed his one and only proof of intelligent design in two paragraphs:

He has defined the universe to be creation. Creation is "something that is or has been created." From this, he concludes God exists, because he created the universe... which he had just asserted to be created.

This is the essence of circular logic. His premise, that the universe was created, requires as much proof as proving there is a Creator. The conclusion that there is a Creator, in this argument, is contingent on the universe being created, which he simply asserted as a premise.

I, some random blogging, computer scientist with only a high school education in biology, utterly destroyed his one and only argument. And we're supposed to think that PZ, a man with a PhD in biology and a celebrity in the evolution-creation public controversy, chickened out because he couldn't do the same? He couldn't destroy the "you can't create a cow from nothing" or "a cat doesn't give birth to dogs" arguments? Really?

Really?

.... Really?