That was fascinatingly terrible.
This caught my attention:
“The past mutational events or transitional intermediate forms that Darwin posited as part of his explanation for why life looks the way it does now, are not observable”
He seems to be denying that we have found any transitional fossils.
And that we can infer that genetic differences between species are due to mutation. Which is difficult to describe as anything other than the position of a man who has gone literally insane.
Here we are at April 1st and — no fooling — another month has passed with no response from RTB. We are in fact informed that no response will be forthcoming “any time soon”, which I am interpreting as a euphemism for “ever”. At what point are we permitted to conclude that progressive creation is cargo cult science? I would suggest that we have passed that point by now.
But no harm in continuing to document, on a monthly basis, how much further that point has receded behind us.
Another month gone, and the crickets continue to chirp.
Can we agree that your expectation turned out to be incorrect?
If I may interject - a very delayed response isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It could mean RTB is deeply considering the question, and possibly dealing with internal arguments as a result. Of course, it could also mean they are ignoring @John_Harshman entirely. 
I think it would be polite for RTB to at least acknowledge JH’s effort, even if it’s only a “we’re still thinking about it”.
You’re not being serious, are you?
I would think that they probably have deeply considered the question. Since their only feasible mode of response is to continue to tell lies, and since they are dealing here with an interlocutor who will not let them off the hook if they do, what possible reason could they have to respond? Far better to lie to a receptive audience.
I think we fail to understand these situations if we do not recognize that all indications are that we are dealing with the lowest and most depraved sorts of people. They are willfully and consciously involved in a fraud. No aspect of their behavior is understandable if we assume them to be honest; but it all snaps into focus if we recognize that we have no reason to expect honesty or decency from these people, ever.
I don’t think that would explain their lack or response. John, of course, would not let them off the hook. But why would that matter? They’ll just give their usual mendacious and unscientific responses, and their supporters will just lap it up. Have a look at this seemingly interminable discussion for an example of how the typical creationist supporter responds when one of the movement’s supposed scientists is caught out making a series of errors so egregious and basic that mere incompetence cannot possible account for them. (Spoiler alert: The creationist supporter continues to insist the creation “scientist” is correct, regardless).
My guess would be that the considered the question cursorily at best, possibly not even to the point of reading the full article, and decided there was no benefit to them in responding. Probably not enough publicity value to make it worth their while.
I think I’m serious. It’s been a long time since I followed this discussion, so maybe there is some critical information I have forgotten?
I fear you are right and hope you are wrong. I lean (topple?) optimistic in these matters, and often get burned for it. Still, I think it’s the only way to try to start a dialogue, To assume the other guy is being as open and honest as we try to be, and work forward from there.
As John’s experience here is showing, however, there is zero interest in a dialogue from that side. I think we can draw some fairly solid conclusions from that.
I’m always perfectly happy to “assume” good faith at the outset, simply on the giving-the-benefit-of-the-doubt policy. But I think that this assumption is heavily abused by creationists, and that it should not be extended indefinitely. Experience teaches that the vast majority of those who PROMOTE creationism – as opposed to the poor bastards who merely believe it – are horrible, horrible people.
At some point we should give up on the charade that any creationists, including those of the Intelligent Design persuasion, are interested in genuine scientific dialogue of the sort that could even potentially lead to them learning something new that would lead to them questioning one of their claims.
Actually, that point was probably passed a long time ago.
It’s not looking good. I still prefer to leave the door open in case that changes.
I think if RTBs competitors were no more horrible than RTB, we would have far less to be concerned about.
I sort the religious extremists into two categories: (1) those who will set fire to us in our own beds, and (2) those who will merely laugh at our plight as we burn, and celebrate our destruction. RTB may be in group 2.
You need a third category: Those who will set their own beds on fire, steadfastly refuse to accept their beds are burning, but blame you for the heat and smoke. 
That is the only way to start a dialogue - but what do you do when it becomes unmistakeable that the other guy is not open, is not honest, and is blatantly and continually lying about his views, his sources, his motives and even what he wrote two posts earlier? Because that happens time, after time, after time, to the extent that it is now not just unsurprising but expected. Even when you start by giving someone the benefit of the doubt, the only real mystery is (assuming they stick around) what they will first lie about, and how soon.[1]
It’s most commonly about where their ‘quotes’ came from. ↩︎
What, is it June already? How the time flies. But do you know what never seems to arrive? RTB’s interest in science and/or dialog, that’s what. Do you think it would help to stop watching the pot? Me neither.
This month we celebrate, if that’s the word, one full year without any sort of reply or acknowledgment from RTB or, really, any other OEC people. It’s more than a year, actually, since RTB was given an advance copy. But let’s just call it a year.
Happy anniversary.