Glenn Shrom is hawking a book of his. He notes with apparent approval a statement by Art Chadwick and Robert DeHaan that would give credence to the claim that “intelligent design” can be or is a part of science. Then he notes with apparent disapproval that Creationism’s Trojan Horse by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross does not approach ID in that credulous fashion. Well, OK, everyone has an opinion. But Shrom went a bit over the line:
Then in 2004, Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross completely ignored that first approach in their book Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design**. Instead they choose to focus, as most of America does, on the religious and philosophical approaches to ID. Their book does not delve into what ID is as a science, but addresses how ID has been used for political and ideological purposes.
It’s one thing to note that CTH doesn’t do much in the way of trying to evaluate ID claims on whatever dubious merits they may once have had. It’s another to pretend that there isn’t anything else out there relevant to the point that Shrom brings up.
So, I wrote Shrom an email to point this out. I reproduce the text of it here.
<= get_option(\'vc_tag\') ?>> = get_option(\'vc_text_before\') ?> 4677 = get_option(\'vc_human_count_text_many\') ?> = get_option(\'vc_preposition\') ?> 1793 = get_option(\'vc_human_viewers_text_many\') ?> = get_option(\'vc_tag\') ?>>
Concerning the advertisement on http://www.authorstobelievein.com/getting.past.the.culture.wars.htm you wrote:
In Getting Past the Culture Wars, I appeal to both evolutionists and Creationists to drop their preconceived, visceral baggage and take a fresh look, with reason and fair-mindedness, at the first approach. Such an enlightened vision is desirable for good education, good religion, good science, and good judicial rulings.
Been there, done that. “Why Intelligent Design Fails”, now available in paperback from Rutgers University Press, fills the bill. Of course, it finds that ID’s claims to science are simply overblown and pretentious. We took up the ID claims as they were and put in the time and effort to evaluate them against the relevant scientific knowledge. Uniformly, they failed to make the grade.
Intelligent design advocates has been steadily ignoring “Why Intelligent Design Fails” since its publication. The question is why you would ignore it in your advertisement, since it rather precisely meets the criterion that you state, and instead you choose to focus upon a book that never promised to deliver that sort of examination of the arguments. At best, this oversight indicates an essential ignorance of the relevant literature. At worst, it indicates a deliberate misdirection intended to mislead the reader.