A few days ago, Billy Dembski responded negatively to a review of Michael Behe's new book by my fellow ScienceBlogger Mark Chu-Carroll. In particular, Dembski questioned whether it was really a review, telling his readers to "Judge for yourself whether this deserves to be called a review." (It is, and a damning indictment of Behe's vacuity).
Demsbki proceeded to question whether a computer scientist has a right to criticize Behe's mathematical arguments. Dembski's actual response to the substance of Chu-Carroll's review was, sadly, lacking. I pressed the issue in the comments, and DaveScot (Dave Springer) responded, "Well, if you want to overlook the fact that Carroll is not employed as a book reviewer, his expertise is computer science not biology or evolution, and it’s a personal blog post then I guess it qualifies as a 'review.'" Later he requested, "Wake me up when someone credible writes a review in a venue more trustworthy than a personal blog."
Anyone who reads my reviews knows my number one interest: hiking. I try to hike a couple dozen new trails a year even as I continue to walk old favorites. I think nothing beats hiking through a redwood forest, exploring the eastern escarpment of the high Sierras, or walking through the diverse ecosystems of Southern California forests. I hope to ultimately piece together all sections of the Pacific Crest Trail. In addition to hiking, I enjoy tennis, reading and playing on the computer.
Judge for yourself whether this deserves to be called a review. (It does, it's just less credible.)
Unbelievably funny! I don't understand how they justify, or compartmentalize the "irony" of their comments and positions. Is Institutionalizing the answer for them? Is our Abnormal Psychology system up to the challenge that they present? Would shock therapy, or drug therapy be best to treat them? Inquiring minds want to know!
What constitutes an acceptable review by an "intelligent design" proponent is a review that glosses over the pseudoscience glossed over by the author in his glossy pseudoscience "presentation" of "science."
In other words, it may be crapola but it's gourmet crapola.
WWake me up when someone credible writes a review in a venue more trustworthy than a personal blog."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5830/1427 appears to fit the bill ... and it's just as damning as Mark's.