Derbyshire reviews (and seems to have read) Berlinski

Derbyshire continues to embarrass himself — it’s as though on the topic of ID and God his emotions take over and he can’t think straight. I’ll spare you his review and simply quote Berlinski’s response, which skillfully shuts him down with very few words:

[From] David Berlinski:

1 If I remark that no sane man would hesitate to choose between A and B, it hardly follows that either A or B is insane. This is a point of logic. It is obvious.

2 To suggest that Mbombo or Unkulunkulu have an enduring claim on our attention is to ignore the striking insight achieved by the ancient Hebrews: That various scattered deities are nothing more than local manifestations of a single God. “As all suns smolder in a single sun,” Chesterton observed, “the word is many but the Word is one.”

3 There is nothing wrong in saying that one has no idea how the universe arose. I say it regularly. What Mr. Derbyshire might mean by “OH MY GOD, I HAVE RIPPED OPEN THE FABRIC OF SPACETIME! … AAAAAARRRRRRRGGHHHHHHH!” is anyone’s guess.

4 A movie is not required to make Richard Dawkins look foolish.

5 I would be happy to join John Derbyshire in a debate about the origins of species.

6 Both consideration in the law of contracts and manifolds in differential topology are “invisible, inaudible, intangible, nonaromatic, flavorless, and undetectable by any known instrument.” What of it?

DB | Apr 29, 2008 – 7:18 am

CLICK HERE FOR FULL THREAD