Ian Musgrave has reposted (from 1999) his misrepresentations about my book.  
I responded to it at the time, and my posts from that era can still be
recovered from Google.com "Advanced Groups Search" by searching for the
author:
        "laser_th...@my-deja.com".

For example, below is a copy (from 1999) of my first response to his
misrepresentations.

-- Walter ReMine
Fellow with Discovery Institute
Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
_The Biotic Message_
http://www1.minn.net/~science

===================================================
===================================================

From: laser_th...@my-deja.com (laser_th...@my-deja.com)
Subject: Dawkins Simulation & Haldanes Dilemma
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1999/09/28

Dawkins Simulation & Haldane's Dilemma

Before I get to the technical details I must give some background.

Several years ago Wesley Elsberry and Clark Dorman began announcing
ill-formed opinions about my book, _The Biotic Message_.  In many ways I
could tell they hadn't read it.  (In the same way your old English
teacher could tell about your homework reading.) The compelling proof,
however, was that within months they were demanding to know about a
computer simulation regarding Haldane's Dilemma (that I had mentioned on
the Internet).  They loudly demanded me to reveal the simulation, and
suggested I was hiding something.  They kept up this empty posturing for
years, with me repeatedly answering, "It's all in the book."  Until five
weeks ago, when another evolutionist posted that it actually is in my
book.  Just as I said all along.

That began a round of recent posts on this subject.  The simulation is
the "Methinks it is like a weasel" program discussed in Richard
Dawkins's book, _The Blind Watchmaker_.  It is appropriately in my
chapter on Haldane's Dilemma.  It takes an entire section (six pages),
and the name of the simulation is elevated to the name of section.  You
cannot read the book and miss it.  Quite simply, Elsberry and Dorman did
not bother to give my book an honest reading before they misrepresented
it for years.

Move now to Robert Williams, who for several years has run a website
that critiques my book's material on Haldane's Dilemma -- at least, that
is the impression his readers get.  (His website now is virtually
identical to how it was several years ago.)  Yet I could tell he hadn't
bothered to read my book, because he misrepresents my material numerous
times (both by commission and omission).  So I pressed him about this in
a debate on sci.bio.evolution eighteen months ago, and he publicly
acknowledged he had not read my book -- the very material he was
pretending to critique on his website!  (My publisher has since
contacted him numerous times asking him to clarify his website so his
readers may know this.  He has refused.) Despite my public protests, his
website is still promoted, especially by the talk.origins crowd, as a
"critique" of my book.  Yet Williams hadn't read my book.

Move forward again to a month ago.  James Acker began posting
misrepresentations of my material, and I posted my objection. Acker then
publicly vowed to CONTINUE his [mis-]presentations even though he hasn't
read my book.

The remarkable thing, the important point, is that through-out all this
NOT ONE EVOLUTIONIST OBJECTED.  Not one!  Not one evolutionist said the
obvious, "Messrs. -- Elsberry, Dorman, Williams, and Acker -- you really
ought to give an honest reading to the material you are criticizing, at
a bare minimum, wouldn't that be the scholarly and honest thing to do?"
The community of Internet evolutionists holds a double standard -- they
demand scholarship from their opponents, but they do not demand it from
their fellows.  That is the point I am documenting here today.

Now we move to the latest example of misrepresentation.

Ian Musgrave recently posted the following point. Due to the peculiar
inner construction of the Dawkins computer simulation, the reproduction
rate and population size are directly linked, unlike in nature.  Thus,
when one lowers the reproduction rate by a factor of sixteen, that
lowers the population size by a factor of sixteen. Therefore he suggests
I had done something unrealistic to this simulation.  Just who is he
kidding! Dawkins's simulation is unrealistic from the get-go -- wildly
in favor of evolution.  No mere factor of sixteen changed that.

Yet Musgrave's post completely omitted that.  He selectively quoted from
my book and SELECTIVELY OMITTED the vast bulk of its material revealing
the many unrealistic pro-evolution features of this simulation. There is
an abundance of that material, so abundant that much of it is neatly
stacked in densely packed, bulleted lists.  It is impossible to read
that section of my book (six pages) and not be overwhelmed by its
presence.  That material is directly relevant to the issue he raised --
Is the simulation unfair to evolution?  My book is on top of his point.
It is hammering all over the point.  Yet he omitted any mention of it!
He omitted any vague reference to it.  He recklessly misrepresented my
book.

And once again, not one evolutionist objected.  Not one.  Not one said
the obvious, "Mr. Musgrave, I have seen ReMine's material, and you have
unfairly omitted the guts of his argument.  Wouldn't it be better to
deal with his material as it actually is, rather than manufacture some
neutered version of it?  Wouldn't it have been better to at least
mention ReMine's points that have a direct bearing on your issue?"  No,
not one evolutionist objected to Musgrave's misrepresentation of my
work.  On the contrary, Tim Ikeda (in a followup post) even found it
humorous.

I hope there will someday be an honest debate about origins (and my
material), but that is impossible in an environment that fosters and
embraces rampant misrepresentation.  That is why thoughtful folks
routinely avoid such places, as I do.

Musgrave suggests it is 'unrealistic' to use a small population size in
the simulation.  Doesn't that strike you as odd, since any other day of
the year evolutionists promote Dawkins's simulation to an unsuspecting
public.  Let me use Musgrave's words to make the point:

     "Trying to compare the substitution rate
     in a population of [N=100] individuals
     with the substitution rate in a population
     of between 10,000 to 100,000 individuals
     is a pretty big blunder to make"
     (from Musgrave's post, brackets mine,
     N=100 from Dawkins's simulation)

If Musgrave believes his own argument, then Dawkins made a "pretty big
blunder".  If he wants to make charges, they must be placed on Dawkins
first.  Followed by evolutionists as a whole, because they fully
promoted this simulation and failed to inform the public about its many
reckless pro-evolution features.

Musgrave had overlooked the key question:  Just what about a small
population would DIS-favor the evolutionary simulation?  This question
is obvious, yet not one evolutionist asked him about it. For them it was
enough merely that the simulation is "unrealistic". It didn't seem to
matter that in well over a dozen ways the simulation is unrealistic --
all wildly in FAVOR of evolution!

So let us focus on Musgrave's issue, population size.  Dawkins's
simulation uses a small population size, which gives it a low cost of
substitution.  Other things being equal, a low cost of substitution
means faster substitution.  Given a species limited reproduction rate,
the population can be 'turned over' (or replaced with a new trait) much
quicker when the population is small.  Population genetic change can
happen quickly in a small population. This is the advantage of a small
population, and this is in FAVOR of the simulated evolution.

Apply that to the simulation I ran for my book.  Take Dawkins's
simulation.  It uses an unrealistic deterministic mutation whose sole
purpose is to enhance the evolutionary illusion.  Therefore correct it
to use a realistic method of random mutation.  That slows the evolution.
Then reduce the reproduction rate (from N=100) to something a bit more
realistic (N=6), for a sexual species this would require the females to
produce 12 offspring each.  The simulation then goes into error
catastrophe and never reaches the selection target.  So we then give
evolution another favor by adjusting the mutation rate to eliminate the
error catastrophe and obtain the fastest speed of evolution.  What
happens?  The population is tiny -- its cost of substitution is also
tiny, at 5.  And that tiny cost FAVORS the speed of evolution.  It is
one-sixth the cost that Haldane estimated as the average for evolution
-- 30.  This simulation incurs a tiny cost, and for a given reproduction
rate that makes for faster evolution. In Dawkins's simulation, the small
population size favors evolution.  (And I have not even begun to recount
here the well over a dozen other ways this simulation favors evolution.)
Nonetheless, with all these advantages, this simulation is less than
five times faster than the rate known as Haldane's Dilemma.

Now my opponents ought consider the following question:  For what reason
would a small population DIS-favor the evolutionary simulation?  If you
try to find such a reason, you will fail. You will find the usual
reasons are neatly disabled by the design of Dawkins's simulation.  His
simulation disallows the usual disadvantages of a small population.  I
claim that this small population (with N=6) in fact has the advantages
of a large population -- without the high substitution cost of a large
population. Put simply, Dawkins's simulation is peculiarly designed to
have the advantages of small and large populations *at the same time*.
It has the best of both! A natural population cannot possibly do that,
but the simulation is unrealistically designed to do that. And it is all
in FAVOR of evolution.

Take it as a challenge.  Think of some disadvantage of a small
population, then carry it through to see how Dawkins's design gets
around that disadvantage.  After you've had this "Aha!" experience, then
notice that the reasons are clearly called out in my section on this
simulation, and explained in my book, and that Musgrave unscrupulously
omitted any mention of them.

Of all the evolutionary simulations, the one by Dawkins is the most
widely known.  It rightly deserves to be debunked, and my book did so.
In the process it demonstrates the seldom-told principles discussed in
my chapter on Haldane's Dilemma.