Posted by Pim van Meurs on November 04, 2004 | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Hot from the press!! Various contributors of the Panda’s Thumb have contributed to this book. This very positive review was published in e-Skeptic  on October 29, 2004 (Formatting added).

Patience and Absurdity: How to Deal with Intelligent Design Creationism

A review of Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism
Mark Young and Taner Edis (Editors)

By Paul R. Gross

Physicists Matt Young and Taner Edis are the editors of a new volume whose contributors are working scholars in the sciences touched by the newest expression of “creation science”: Intelligent Design (ID) Theory. Why Intelligent Design Fails is a patient assessment of all the scientific claims made in connection with ID. The half dozen science-enabled spokesmen for ID are the indispensable core group of an international neo-creationist big tent. Goals of the American movement are sweeping: they begin with a highly visible, well-funded, nationwide effort to demean evolutionary science in American school (K-12) curricula. ID is offered as a better alternative. The hoped-for result is the addition of ID to, or even its substitution for, the teaching of evolution. Which would mean substituting early 19 th-century nature study for modern biology. The admitted ultimate goal of the ID movement is to topple natural science (they berate it as “materialism”) from its pedestal in Western culture and to replace it with “theistic science.”

Continue reading  “Book Review: Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism by Paul R. Gross”

Posted by Gary S. Hurd on September 19, 2004 | Comments (13) | TrackBack (1)

William Dembski has for years made claims that his “Explanatory Filter” (EF) provided a theoretical basis for “pre-theoretic” sciences such as archaeology and forensics.  I am an archaeologist who also has forensic experience as a consultant to law enforcement, and trial expert witness.  Plus, I worked as a private investigator for several years.  So, finding no comparison with the EF and my professional experience, I was always somewhat irritated when reading Dembski’s  books. For this reason, I was very happy to have been asked to contribute a chapter to “Why Intelligent Design Fails” (WIDF).

Continue reading  “"unintelligent non-design" and Amazon.com reviewers”

Posted by Pim van Meurs on August 22, 2004 | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

Gary Hurd takes on the claims by Dembski that the ‘explanatory filter’ is how in archaeology or criminology ‘intelligent design’ is detected to show that these claims are incorrect.

Anyone familiar with the lastest crime shows on TV, especially about crime scene investigations, knows that criminology works with concepts like means, motives and opportunity. None of these factors plays any role in an ‘explanatory filter’. Hurd makes a compelling case that the methods used by archaeologist and criminologists does not mimick the ‘explanatory filter’ . In fact, he shows why the ‘explanatory filter’ would be largely useless.

It is understandable that ID wants to avoid dealing with means or motives at all cost, hence the (erroneous) suggestion that design can be reliably inferred without any knowledge or assumptions about the designer.

Continue reading  “Why Intelligent Design Fails: Chapter 8 "The explanatory filter, archaeology, and Forensics" Gary Hurd”

Posted by Pim van Meurs on August 17, 2004 | Comments (23) | TrackBack (0)

Note from author: As with most of my reviews this is a work in progress, I will update the posting with additional chapter reviews as I finish reading them.

Debating Design : From Darwin to DNA
by William Dembski (Editor), Michael Ruse (Editor)

Introduction to the book by Ruse and Dembski

My review at Amazon review: “Not much of a debate”

While the title suggests that there would be a balance in arguments the anti-Darwinian arguments totally lose out against an overwhelming team of experts. Ruse, Ayala, Sober, Pennock and Miller methodically address the flaws in the scientific and philosophical arguments presented by the ID proponents. The ID proponents such as Dembski, Behe and Meyer mostly seem to be repeating old arguments while ignoring the main criticisms against their ideas.

Despite this, the book presents some interesting contributions. As a scientist and Christian I was particularly pleased with the contributions of Haught, Polkinghorne, Ward and others in part III “Theistic evolution” showing how evolution and divine Providence need not be at odds.

Continue reading  “Book review: Debating Design (Dembski/Ruse ed.)”

Posted by Pim van Meurs on August 13, 2004 | Comments (63) | TrackBack (0)

I intend to review a book by Young and Edis (editors) called “Why intelligent design fails”.

In thirteen chapters contributors  Gert Korthof, David Ussery, Alan Gishlick, Ian Musgrave, Niall Shanks, Istvan Karsai, Gary Hurd, Jeffrey Shallit, Wesley Elsberry, Mark Perakh, Victor Stenger and of course Taner Edis and Matt Young show how the foundations of ID are without much scientific support. As experts in their various fields, these scientists take on various aspects of Intelligent Design claims and methodically take them apart.

This book is the lastest in a line of excellent books in which authors have addressed various aspects of the Intelligent Design movement and have shown how Intelligent Design has failed to live up to its scientific claims.

• Unintelligent Design by Mark Perakh

• God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory by Niall Shanks

• Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design by Barbara Carroll Forrest

• Has Science Found God? The Latest Results in the Search for Purpose in the Universe by Victor J. Stenger

• Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose? by Michael Ruse

Recommendation:

Continue reading  “Why intelligent design fails: Introduction”

Posted by Pim van Meurs on August 04, 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

The following review of Privileged Planet was also submitted to Amazon

  Gonzalez et al appeal to Dembski’s _Design Inference_ to show how the correlation of habitability and measurability shows evidence of `purpose’ in the universe. Various people such as Wein, or various authors on Talkreasons.org, have already shown what is wrong with the _Design Inference_ argument. I will limit my comments to the claims by Gonzalez et al to show that their appeal to the _Design Inference_ is inappropriate. In addition I will show that their use of correlation to support ‘purpoe’ suffers from poorly defined and thus poorly quantifiable terms, that it is based on a single observation of what they call a ‘constrained optimum’ (the earth), that it is biased towards earth-like planets, and that it is based on cherry picking of examples that support the thesis. In other words, from a scientific perspective their claims are meaningless.
  Which of course does not mean that their book does not make for a useful apologetic tool (hence my two stars). For people who need their faith to be supported by some impressive sounding but scientifically poorly supported claims, this book serves its purpose. If one is hoping that this book will present a scientific argument for _Intelligent Design_ then one will be quite disappointed.

Continue reading  “Privileged Planet: Amazon Review”

Posted by jml on August 04, 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Over at stranger fruit, I provide a summary of Dembski’s Uncommon Dissent which expands on Jason’s post of July 13th (while linking to his subsequent writings) and offers some thoughts on Michael Denton as ID supporter. Enjoy!

Posted by Pim van Meurs on August 04, 2004 | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

The authors of Privileged Planet have posted the following response at Discovery’s  Center for the renewal of science and culture Was Starlight Deflection Important for the Acceptance of General Relativity? A Response to Critics

I find it interesting as to what critics the authors are referring? Because in the first paragraph they mention a single criticism posted to various places. Surely the authors do understand the difference between a single datapoint counted many times and multiple independent data pojnts? Or perhaps not as I intend to show.

For earlier reviews of Privileged Planet see:

• The Privileged Planet Part 1: Where Purpose and Natural Law freely Mix Part 1

• The Privileged Planet Part 2: The failure of the ‘Design Inference’

• Amazon review of Privileged Planet

Continue reading  “Icons of ID: Privileged Planet Authors respond to 'unnamed' critic”

Posted by Pim van Meurs on July 31, 2004 | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Not surprisingly the Discovery Institute is getting a good mileage out of Gonzalez’s thesis. Next I will explore the link between Privileged Planet, Rare Earth and the Intelligent Design movement.
The book “Privileged Planet” presents a very poorly supported design argument in which the authors make claims about measurability and habitability which cannot be supported. In fact, when the authors try to link their ideas with Dembski’s ideas, they only accept chance as an alternative to ‘design’ implicitly accepting that regularities (laws of nature) can in fact be ‘designers’. Rather than strengthening the design inference, the authors have managed to undermine the design inference. The observed coincidences (can we say cherry picking) leading to a claim of correlation are not scientifically supported but do make for some interesting apologetic tools.

Recently the book was reviewed in Nature: “Bright Blue Dot” by Douglas A. Vakoch in Naturel Vol 24 p 808-809

Continue reading  “The Privileged Wedge”

Posted by Steve on July 16, 2004 | Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)

Two new reviews about books critiquing the ID movement: 

The first is a short dual review of Why Intelligent Design Fails and The Cultures of Creationism, appearing in New Scientist magazine.  PT’s own Matt Young is coeditor of the first. 

The second is a review of Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, appearing in Science and Theology News.  Our own Paul Gross is coauthor of this book. 

Thanks to Glenn Branch for the heads-up.

Posted by Pim van Meurs on June 26, 2004 | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

In addition to my reviews and evaluation of the Privileged Planet ideas, the book has now been reviewed in Nature by Douglas A. Vakoch from the SETI Institute. Titled “Bright blue dot” NATURE VOL 429 24 JUNE 2004 p 808-809

Continue reading  “Privileged Planet: Nature review”

Posted by Pim van Meurs on June 03, 2004 | Comments (18) | TrackBack (0)

Bruce Grant reviews “Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design”, the excellent expose by Forrest and Gross of the intelligent design movement.

I find Bruce Grant’s review particularly of interest because he provides us with some previously unknown details as to a manuscript he reviewed a while ago that ‘purported to review the literature on the evolution of melanism in peppered moths”.  Bruce’s comments were scathing.

Soon thereafter the manuscript appeared on the internet and later as an op-ed piece for “The Scientist”. According to Grant this version was still “error-ridden” with many of the same errors he had pointed out as a reviewer.

Bruce Grant

“Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all.”
—Herbert Spencer, 1820-1903

ABOUT SIX YEARS AGO the editor of a national journal in the biological sciences sent me a manuscript to referee that purported to review the literature on the evolution of melanism in peppered moths. No new data were presented. The author had not published in this field previously, and had not produced any research of his own. But science is an open enterprise, and anyone who has something valid to offer should be welcomed and encouraged. So, I read it with care, and offered this commentary to the editor

Continue reading  “Bruce Grant reviews "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design"”

Posted by Jeff on April 07, 2004 | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1)

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.

Continue reading  “Desperately Evading the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design: A Review of Dembski's The Design Revolution”

Posted by Jason Rosenhouse on April 06, 2004 | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Having temporarily put aside the MSUP ID anthology, I've recently started making a more concerted effort to get through Dembski's The Design Revolution. I previously posted some thoughts on two especially outrageous quotes I found (upon opening the book to a random page) over at EvolutionBlog, in my entry for March 16.

So I came into my office this morning all set to unload a real sockdolager of a post on the sheer, unmitigated awfulness of Dembski's latest, only to discover that Jeffrey Shallit had beaten me to it. Sigh. As it happens though, there is so much to criticize in Dembski's book that Shallit has only scratched the surface.

Continue reading  “Dumping on Dembski”

Posted by Timothy Sandefur on April 03, 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Unfortunately, The American Scholar is not online, so you'll have to pick up a copy at Borders, but I recommend you do so and give a look to the spring 2004 issue's "Scientific Method" column by Natalie Angier. She explains her reaction when biologists approach her and urge her to teach people about evolution. Aside from its rather lame humor, I think her response is right on target--but you'll have to read it to see.

Posted by Nick Matzke on March 30, 2004 | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

On my way to the Thumb for an afternoon break, my collegue Alan Gishlick passed to me his booknote on The Cambrian Fossils of Chengjiang, China: The Flowering of Early Life. Although many Thumb patrons work (more or less) at University of Ediacara, we maintain an interest in the Cambrian even though the Cambrian critters are Johnnies-come-lately from our perspective.

Continue reading  “The Cambrian Fossils of Chengjiang, China: The Flowering of Early Life”

Posted by Jason Rosenhouse on March 28, 2004 | Comments (34) | TrackBack (0)

If there is one thing that bugs me more than creationist folderol, it's wimpy and inept defenses of evolution from scholars who really ought to know better.

I am currently wading through the book Darwinism, Design, and Public Education edited by John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer, published by Michigan State University Press. Meyer and Campbell are defenders of ID, but the book contains a selection of essays ostensibly defending evolution.

Alas, it quickly becomes clear that evolution's defenders were carefully chosen. Consider the following statement from William Provine's contirbution. It is actually a self-quote from an earlier essay of his:

Continue reading  “With Friends Like These”

Posted by perakh on March 26, 2004 | Comments (28) | TrackBack (2)

My book Unintelligent Design became available from Amazon in the middle of December 2003. On December 22 those curious observers who watch the sometimes funny exchange of opinions regarding books offered by Amazon, already could read a review of my book signed "A reader from Waco, Tx." The opinion of that anonymous and very prompt reviewer was that my book was bad because it was published by a bad publisher - Prometheus Books. The anonymous reviewer recommended instead a forthcoming book by William Dembski titled The Design Revolution (which presumably must be good because of being published by a good publisher - InterVarsity Press). The reviewer from Waco promised that Dembski's book would answer all my concerns.
Of course, the fact that Dembski holds a non-teaching position at Baylor university which is located in Waco, Tx, was supposed to be a mere coincidence.

Continue reading  “Creative Ideas of IDists as reviewers”

Posted by brauer on March 25, 2004 | Comments (6) | TrackBack (2)

For those new to this subject, the current iteration of creationism-in-the-classroom goes by the name "Intelligent Design." It differs from earlier strains of "scientific creationism" in a number of ways. First, it is scrupulously vague, allowing the movement to attract supporters with a wide range of beliefs (see Nic's entry on Rael below) while avoiding any whiff of commitment to a testable hypothesis. Second, it avoids like the plague any reference to religion. Finally, it is extremely well-funded and organized on a national level.

Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross have examined the religious origins and political life of the movement (which has come to be known, somewhat ominously, as "The Wedge.") Their book, Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (1) is scrupulously researched and very well written.

In his review of the book Michael Cavanaugh, president of the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science (IRAS), discussed why it is so important to understand the origins and motivations of the ID movement:

Continue reading  “IRAS President reviews Creationism's Trojan Horse”