Berlinski Responds to The Derb
David Berlinski has written a piece in response to John Derbyshire on "Expelled".
Having not seen the documentary that he proposes to criticize, Derbyshire is nonetheless quite certain that he knows what it conveys. “It is pretty plain,” he asserts, “that it is a piece of creationist porn.” Perhaps I will be forgiven for suggesting that John Derbyshire’s late-night scrutiny of the Internet may have corrupted his habitual search for le mot juste. Expelled has nothing to do with creationism, and if it is pornographic, the details have not become widely known.
Unfortunately, Intelligent Design is Creationism -- albeit with the serial numbers filed off. In his opinion in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, Judge Jones made precisely that finding:
[p. 136]
H. Conclusion
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
Expelled promotes Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is Creationism. Therefore, Expelled promotes Creationism. Q.E.D.
Go ahead and read the rest of his piece. And then go ahead and read ExpelledExposed.com, and some of the other pieces I've linked at my site.
For what it's worth, I've read a couple of Berlinski's comments on evolution, and decided this is an area where he doesn't read for content very well. In particular, his discussion of a piece by Nilsson and Pelger, "An optimistic estimate of the time required for the evolution of the eye", he did not read the article he presumes to debunk. Seriously. He claims the article fails to address points that it most definitely does address.
The only explanation of the content of his "response" to the piece is that he read Richard Dawkins' description of the article, tracked down the article, and read only the captions of the illustrations therein.
The other piece he wrote was less memorable, and not nearly as egregious, but it still fell far short of the sort of analysis (or understanding) I'd expect from someone with his credentials.
1 comment:
Berlinski dosnt read for content very well because he is a second rate ideological hack, full of the usual double-minded ambiguities of those on the "right". Just like Stein and that similar clown/cretin Dinesh Desouza.
The fact that these clowns are taken so seriously (and put forward as "bright" advocates--especially Dinesh) by those on the "right" is indicative of the hyped hollowness of their "world"-view altogether.
And their manipulative POWER-seeking agendas.
Anyone (Berlinsky) who is associated with the "Discovery" Institute is a second rate ideological hack.
Most of their stuff wouldnt pass first muster at a half-way rigorous philosophy 101 class at any university that promotes rigorous examination of ALL propositions---especially the usual so called "religious" propositions.
What could "the resurrection of jesus" possibly point to or mean that is in any sense provable.
The usual "faith" response is just intellectual laziness, a failure to exercise discriminative intelligence. And to go where discriminative intelligence leads or points. The neceassary Radical dis-Illusionment with all of the old lies.
Post a Comment