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.)