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

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.”

5 Comments

kanchi · 4 November 2004

Excuse Me, may I have a question about Wasserstein Metric?
Q1. What is j1, j2,...jn in the equation of Mallows distance between empirical distribution?
Q2. Given two Gaussian samples, X:{x1, x2...xn} from N(mu_x,var_x), and Y:{y1, y2...yn} from N(mu_y, var_y), how to compute the wasserstein metric?
Thanks a lot.

p.s. I read your article on Aug.12, that is very nice. http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000416.html

steve · 4 November 2004

"Patient objections to the ludicrous," he writes, "become ludicrous themselves."

I would just like to say that I agree with this idea. Pretending the ideas of the (names deleted in the interest of niceness) have any merit has bad consequences. For instance, the other day I couldn't stop laughing after I heard Gary the Brickyard Preacher (a local crazy at NCSU) say that not only was John Kerry a traitor, he was the antichrist. The proper response to that for me was to keep walking to the lab and think "What a retard.", not go alert the philosophy department and urge them to respond. (before the objections come in, let me say I am not advocating ignoring the political efforts of these idiots, just the moronic scientific content as much as possible)

freelunch · 7 November 2004

It is politically necessary to show people that "Scientific" Creationism and its pseudo-secular alter-ego, Intelligent Design, are frauds and that the scientifically versed advocates of these doctrines know that they are perpetrating a fraud. There is no reasonable way to argue theological doctrine, and scientists have no need to do so, but it is reasonable to show that the scientific evidence shows that Creationism has been proven to be wrong.

We can and must use science to stop these religious people from meeting their political goals by showing that they are lying about science and are only hiding their theocratic doctrine in false scientific words. Once they see that their ruse will be stopped each time they try it, they will eventually abandon this approach. I do not expect to see it happen soon, but I will do my part as a Wisconsin taxpayer to stop this fraud from gaining a foothold in Grantsburg.

Salvador T. Cordova · 11 November 2004

Hiya PvM, I liked the book especially because it featured the writing so Jeffrey Shallit. Shallit got in the limelight because of his famous student Bill Dembski. Dembski, in the acknowledgement section of his book, Design Inference, offers praise for his teacher:

As for computational complexity theory, I was introduced to it during th academic year 1987-88, a year devoted to cryptography at the computer science department of the University of Chicago. Jeff Shallit, Adi Shamir, and Claus Schnorr were present that year and helped me gain my footing.

Shallit was mentor to an ID hero, and for that we IDists offer our gratitude. :-) Also, I should mention, Paul Gross's school, UVa, is now host to one of the brightest IDEA (Intelligent Design and Evolution Awereness) chapters in Virginia. It has grad students in biochemistry and a sympathetic, tenured, biology faculty member. See: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1244 Apparently Paul Gross couldn't rid his own school of the Trojan Horse. :-) Salvador PS I refuted Elsberry and Shallit's critique of Dembski's work at: http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000543.html They unwittingly gave ID a gift through their SAI concept. IDists should have a holiday in their honor, especially Shallit, since he was Dembski's teacher. :-)

PvM · 11 November 2004

I refuted Elsberry and Shallit's critique of Dembski's work at: http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000543.html
— Salvador

Dear Sal, don't exaggerate. I understand that Dembski's inabilities to formulate a scientific theory of design may have become somewhat of a disappointment to his disciples but your sophomoric arguments do not impress. Let us know when you have something meaningful to add. Your claim that you have refuted Elsberry and Shallit's critique of Dembski's work is just hilarious but poorly supported.