Joined: Jan. 2007
|Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 07 2007,04:58)|
|Quote (ERV @ Dec. 06 2007,22:23)|
|Quote (dheddle @ Dec. 06 2007,21:50)|
|Although Peter Irons said the exact same thing I did in a post I had on The Design of Life, namely that it is a vanity publication, I would say his review is even worse than Kwok's. I look foward to some evolutionary biologists actually reading the book and penning a proper stone-cold, substantive review.|
Well, its 'Pandas and People Part II'. Its the 'same' damn book with a different cover and two different 'authors'. There is going to be nothing in that book we havent seen over and over and over and over and some retarded Christian is going to see those GLOWING reviews and say "HEY! This should be part of OUR curriculum!" and then we get another DOVER..
Do you now understand Kwoks review? Do you understand why bringing up Dover and high schools is important? Do you see why Dembski spasmed at Kowks review? Do you even undertand that reading another ID book on the same damn shit is pointless?
Whats the revelation? Whats the new idea in 'Design' that none of us have seen before? We could all recite chapters of 'Design' right now, without ever reading a damn page.
I tried, perhaps too gently, to answer this question before. So, perhaps I should try again.
As someone who has sat on the sidelines since Dover watching the game and heckling the IDers, let me start by saying that commenting on books that haven't been read is something Dembski does (as you have noted). Presuming to comment on papers by reading only the title or abstract is a tactic only worthy of a Sal Cordova or Denyse O'Leary. I expect a better approach to scholarship from the pro-science side. So, who am I to make such demands on you? Well, I am an reasonably educated adult that is neither a fundamentalist True Believer ™ nor involved in the life sciences in any manner whatsoever. In short, people just like me are the battleground in this fight.
The science will stand on its own merits, but public policy stands on the credibility of its proponents. And, on the public policy front, reviewing books that haven't been read is not a way to make inroads with people like me. It just doesn't matter that you are absolutely certain it is the same old, warmed over BS. All that matters is that public policy discussions should be kept on substantive point. And things like this hand the opposition the ability to easily poison the well. It may well be the only ability they have, but it is the only ability they need. The fact that 'Billy did it too' does not bring the debate back on point and does nothing to regain lost credibility.
You'll never do anything to win over the Dembski's of the world or their gaggle of hangers-on. Nor will you likely ever do anything to lose the knowledgeable scientists of the world. But, you can lose the large middle ground, where people like me reside and public policy gets decided, with stunts like this.