First Things editor scolds New York Times over Dawkins’s review of Behe
|September 16, 2007||Posted by O'Leary under Intelligent Design|
You usually know that somebody is losing the argument when he loses his cool and resorts to bluster, abuse, caricature, and the invocation of authorities who agree with him.
He is referring, of course, to Richard Dawkins’s attempt to trash Behe’s book in The New York Times. He notes the curious fact that the Times should never have given the book to Dawkins to review anyway, without giving Behe the right of reply (which it would never dare to do):
It is hard to know what purpose is served by the Book Review in having Dawkins review Behe, except, possibly, to ostracize anyone who presumes to raise questions about prevailing Darwinist orthodoxies and, perhaps, to pander to the smug prejudices of the presumed readership of the Times. That does not instill confidence in the Darwinist materialism that they are so desperately defending.
This is all particularly interesting because Neuhaus is not especially one of the ID think tank Discovery Institute fans.
Rather, it sounds (especially when you read the whole thing) as though he is beginning to get the same picture as so many of the rest of us: Darwinism is the Enron of biology.
The fact that he scolds the New York Times over Dawkins’s review is interesting in view of the question raised by some about whether Dawkins had actually read Behe’s book.
Also: Cameron Wybrow, who got an honest review of Mike Behe’s Edge of Evolution published in the Philadelphia Inquirer, found himself taking to task a completely silly review in the Winnipeg Free Press. Put it this way: It is impossible for U of Winnipeg molecular biologist Janice Dodd to consider the possibility that Darwinism might not be true. So she doesn’t. Read her review, then Wybrow’s comment.
I was travelling on a Toronto streetcar today with a fellow journalist who was musing about the sheer gullibility of Darwinists. Learned in history, he pointed out that Darwinists had originally attacked Mendel because Mendel cited statistics for genetics – instead of the vagueness the Darwinists so loved. He and I believe in a traditional religion, but the Darwinists believe in magic.
Also: ID materials outselling anti-ID materials? Gotta getta law against that!
Catholic Church continues to reject Darwinism
Is intelligent design biblical?
Jason Rennie’s SciPhiShow interview with Denyse O’Leary on The Spiritual Brain.