60 of 80 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Read the trial transcript and the opinon instead, March 28, 2006
This review is from: Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision (Paperback)
I bought this book to see what the ID proponents had to say that they didn't say in court. I found little. And most of what I did find was more succinctly addressed by luskins's and behe's previous critiques of the decision which you can find on the internet for free. It is a quick read though.
Judge Jones' decision is a few pages longer than this book but if you want the truth about this case I encourage you to read the decsision and the transcripts of the testimony which you can find on the internet at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html
Avoid the testimony of the school board members if you are a christian (pro ID or not) because a couple of the professedly christian board members got caught lying on the stand and I know that was upsetting to me. Don't miss the expert testimony though. Robert Pennock, Barbara Forrest, Michael Behe and Steven Fuller. HIgh points (IMO) are Dr Forrest's testimony about the writing of "Of Pandas and People" the textbook in question at the trial, and Dr Behe's admission that the rule changes necessary to make ID science would also allow astrology.
The view of the decision that you get here is not as complete or truthful as the the picture you can get by going to the source documents and making up your own mind. For instance, reading this book will convince you that Judge Jones went beyond his authority to make a needless determination that ID is not science. But a reading of the trial transcripts will show you that the one of the major arguments made by the ID forces was that ID should be taught because it is science. While a narrower opinion could have been written (with the same result that ID can't be taught in Dover but based only on the defendants' intent to teach a particular brand of religion in the public schools in violation of the establishment clause), the judge was well within his right to rule on the merits of all the defense's claims.
I can only recommend this book if you are extremely interested in this debate and wish to keep up with the latest of the ID proponents' strategies.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
30 of 44 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
ID: Found Guilty by Reason of Inanity, April 15, 2006
This review is from: Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision (Paperback)
"Traipsing" is basically a cut-and-paste job from articles available for free on websites like the Discovery Institute's own site. Why pay for such a silly book when you can get it for free? (Sorry, Amazon ;-)
"Traipsing" criticizes Judge Jones' ruling in the Kitzmiller case, but the book's many blunders simply confirm Jones' ruling that requiring ID to be taught in science classes constituted "breathtaking inanity."
I highlight six major blunders. There were many more.
1. REDUNDANCY. Jones ruled against ID on two grounds: 1) the School Board's action did not have a valid, secular purpose, and 2) its primary effect was not secular either. The authors blast Jones for using two justifications when one would have been sufficient. That complaint is simply naïve. When a trial judge has multiple justifications for his decision, it is entirely routine that he list all of them. That way, even if an appellate court rejects one particular justification on appeal, the trial court's basic decision might still be upheld based on one or more of the alternate justifications. That practice is so routine, it's amazing that the authors, two of whom claim to be attorneys, could be unaware of it.
(BTW, the judge in an earlier creationism case, McLean v. Arkansas, followed exactly the same "redundant" procedure, and McLean was cited favorably in a Supreme Court decision, so apparently the Supremes don't share the authors' concern about "redundant" justifications either.)
2. NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS/FALSE DICHOTOMY. The design inference almost always follows a negative argument, like this: "There is no known natural cause for X, therefore X is attributable to design." Negative arguments like that are said to be based on a dichotomy. Judge Jones ruled that ID's dichotomy argument was an illogical "false dichotomy." In "Traipsing," Michael Behe tries to rebut Jones.
Behe starts by describing a valid dichotomy, strictly limited to only two types of causes, intelligent and natural. Behe's theoretical dichotomy seems to pass muster; the problem is, the negative arguments that ID-iots (including Behe himself!) actually use are nothing at all like Behe's theoretical dichotomy. Specifically, the "no-known-natural-cause" arguments that Behe and other ID-iots actually use clearly imply the existence of a third type of cause, i.e., unknown natural causes, and that violates the two-causes limitation of a valid dichotomy. So Behe's own arguments demonstrate that Jones was exactly right: ID's negative arguments are illogical, because they employ a false dichotomy with more than two types of causes.
3. BIG BANG RELIGIOUS IMPLICATIONS. Behe spent what seemed like hours in court whining that it is unfair to ban ID just because it has religious implications, since the Big Bang theory is routinely taught even though it has religious implications too. Behe's whining completely misses the point. Courts have never held that teaching scientific theories with secondary religious implications is unconstitutional; what is unconstitutional is teaching primarily religious theories with no meaningful scientific implications. Big difference! Behe thought ID was in the former category, not the latter; he was painfully, obviously wrong. Big Bang theory is a genuine scientific theory, with many important, empirically-testable predictions confirmed by subsequent observations. ID, however, makes no -- repeat, no -- such predictions, making confirmation impossible. So there is far more to Big Bang theory than its alleged religious implications, while ID contains nothing but religious implications. No one denies that equivalent theories should be treated equivalently, but ID is no more equivalent to Big Bang theory than Mohammed Atta was equivalent to an airline pilot.
4. TESTABLE PREDICTIONS. ID-iots are well aware how important predictions are in science, so "Traipsing" actually claims that ID does make meaningful, testable predictions, but that's a naked assertion, an empty bluff. Behe spent three whole days -- three whole days!!! -- on the witness stand without describing even one such prediction. Steve Fuller didn't describe any either. Scott Minnich claimed that ID predicts the existence of complex, functioning biosystems, but that's nonsensical, because ID's core concepts do not logically lead to Minnich's "prediction."
As an allegedly scientific alternative to evolution, ID should provide meaningful, testable explanations for biological origins; but it does nothing of the sort. The simple fact is that ID does not logically predict the existence of any -- repeat, any -- particular sort of system at all. Intelligent designers may produce simple systems, complex systems, functioning systems, non-functioning systems, biosystems, non-biological systems, or they may produce nothing at all; so claiming that ID specifically predicts the existence of complex, functioning biosystems is just empty bluster, and Minnich's "discovery" of biological complexity is essentially meaningless.
5. DEFINITION OF SCIENCE. "Traipsing" argues that Jones shouldn't have issued any ruling at all about whether ID is genuine science, because philosophers of science don't unanimously agree how to define science. I guess courts shouldn't rule on medical malpractice cases either (doctors aren't unanimous), insanity defenses (psychologists aren't unanimous), antitrust cases (economists aren't unanimous), child custody cases (parents aren't unanimous), etc. DeWolf must think judges should decide only those controversies where there is no controversy. That's just dumb.
6. IS ID RELIGION? The authors howl in outrage that ID is not necessarily religious, and point out that some ID writings do not explicitly mention God. Well, yeah, but a lot of other ID writings do! (For specific examples, see Barbara Forrest's devastating testimony.) Furthermore, courts have never held that merely avoiding the G-word guarantees constitutional immunity. The creationists in McLean and Edwards didn't use the G-word either, and they lost both of those cases. And Edwards was a Supreme Court decision! Judge Jones was simply following those precedents. (Again, it's mystifying that the authors, two of whom claim to be attorneys, seem to be completely unaware of major precedents in this area.)
In short, ID claims to promote critical thinking, but judging from this book, ID promotes critical thinking about as well as Hustler magazine promotes sexual restraint. There are glaring errors on every key point. That's not critical thinking; that's breathtaking inanity, just like Judge Jones said.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
