|
Author
|
Topic: Review of The Design Revolution
|
Matthew J. Brauer
Member
Member # 819
|
posted 06. April 2004 10:46
Jeffrey Shallit has written a brief review of Dembski's new book The Design Revolution.
quote:
William Dembski's latest book, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design consists of 44 questions about intelligent design with short answers by Dembski -- each answer takes about 6 or 7 pages, on average.
Critics of Dembski -- such as Mark Perakh -- who were looking forward to having their objections addressed will be disappointed. The Design Revolution is even more intellectually dishonest than I thought possible. The easy questions Dembski actually addresses are answered disingenuously; the really hard questions he avoids entirely. This book should have been titled Desperately Evading the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design.
So many of Dembski's answers consist of evasion or dissembling that it would take a book as long as Dembski's own to catalogue them all. In this short essay I'll just list a few.
The remainder is available here.
[ 06. April 2004, 12:29: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 06. April 2004 12:28
At the risk (actually there is no risk, there is a probability close to 1) of being branded as censorer, I'm closing this thread down.
Posts that have the smell of rhetoric, single-minded advocacy, etc. just don't fit in with what we want at the Literature Review section of this site.
The review cited in this thread was not given with the intention of finding a single redeeming bit of content nor fascillitating a constructive dialogue. Reviews posted at this site should at least provide an avenue into constructive discussion. The reviewer of this book obviously had no intention of extracting positive elements worth our attention. Perhaps there were none. If not, then why the trouble to review the book and post the review at this site? My only guess is that the reviewer and poster had alternative reasons (i.e. to advocate against, to spill more rhetoric into this age of rhetoric, to promote a website).
[ 06. April 2004, 12:30: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic