tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post113625080193013101..comments2023-06-25T09:40:13.649-05:00Comments on Russell Glasser's blog: Review of "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael BeheAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-1137369930575265772006-01-15T18:05:00.000-06:002006-01-15T18:05:00.000-06:00"I apologize in advance for the complexity of the ..."I apologize in advance for the complexity of the material, but it is inherent in the point I wish to make. Richard Dawkins can simplify to his heart's content, because he wants to convince his readers that Darwinian evolution is 'a breeze.' In order to understand the barriers to evolution, however, we have to bite the bullet of complexity." (pg 48)<BR/><BR/>As someone who has been complimented on making good explanations of the complex to laymen, this is <I>such</I> a pet peeve of mine. "That other guy actually tries to help you understand his point, but I'm not going to bother because <I>I am right</I>." It's an argument from authority. Now that I say that, though, I suppose such arguments would go over well with the intended audience. <BR/><BR/>But it's especially disingenuous coming from a scientist. The whole point of peer review in the scientific community is to get other people to understand and test new concepts/theories/etc. to make sure you're not just fooling yourself. If you just spout a lot of gibberish and get people to agree with you because "gee, that sounds complicated, he must know what he's talking about", then all you've proven is that your audience is lazy. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the review. Your persistence is admirable. I probably would've put the book down at the second Calvin and Hobbes analogy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-1136997046253754562006-01-11T10:30:00.000-06:002006-01-11T10:30:00.000-06:00Wow-- extremely thorough analysis of the book and ...Wow-- extremely thorough analysis of the book and it's arguments.<BR/><BR/> I sincerely feel that I need to read more of Dawkins, Darwin, etc.. myself- as I don't always feel as knowledgeable as I'd like to be when I get into heated conversations (with people on either side of the issue) about evolution and ID.<BR/><BR/> In general I think ID speaks for itself (it's real motives I mean) when one examines who it's proponets are; about 90%+ of those I hear about in the news pushing ID, and at least 70%+ of those who are family/coworkers (people I know) who seem in favor of the theory-- can all be labeled as "fundamentalist/evangical Christian"- with a vast majority of these having little or no scientific background and, ironically, often having little exposure to the 'formal' theory of ID (apparently some of the parents in one the recent school bruha ha-s kept calling it 'intelligence design')and pathetically little knowlege of Christian church history or biblical literacy!<BR/><BR/>If ID WERE NOT simply 'creationism in sheeps clothing' then--by now at least, it would seem reasonable that it would have started to get a backing from other groups... Jews, Hindus, heck, maybe even the Catholics or liberal protestant Christians, at least extremist sects of other religions, right? But this isn't what has happened. <BR/><BR/> While the major Christian denominations (Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.) do accept the idea of a divine creator (kind of goes with the territory, lol) they do so IN CONJUNCTION with accepting the scientific truth of evolution--- NOT in refutation of it.Allen Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04764799647023692578noreply@blogger.com