Barbara Forrest

Political machinations and social subterfuge. Misdirections and lies.
Forrest and Gross's heavily researched and footnoted investigation of the Intelligent Design 'movement' to "replace methodological naturalism" with a concept more suited to a religious perspective was, for me, engrossing and a validation of other books that I've read and information that I've gleaned over the past 15 years.
It's been close to 25 years in the chronology of DI as elucidated by the authors of this book, and show more it's likely that those that have supported it in the past have not been deterred due to setbacks such as having no evidence for their position.
For anyone with a decent science background this stands as a solid point in the continued push for integrity in biology. For anyone holding a more theistic point of view this well be a disappointment. show less

I read this book a few years ago and am just now getting around to writing a review. This is a very good overview of the Intelligent Design ( ID ) movement and the subterfuge used by various conservative Christian organizations to get the biblical creation story taught in public schools as a legitimate scientific theory. Reading this in conjunction with the Dover decision trial transcripts ( available at the ACLU website and other places ) will give you a very good education about the ID show more movement.

Rather than rehash the many good reviews posted here(This was originally posted on Amazon) ( It's always good to read the 1 star and 5 starred reviews ), let me offer a couple of thoughts.

ID proponents want a fair hearing and claim that alternate views are not allowed to be taught. That is all well and good and our public school system often does this. For example, Newton's laws are taught in our public schools, even though we know they have been superseded by Einstein's laws. They work very well in the world we live in, so they are useful to know. But as the saying goes, 'show me the money'. Where is the evidence, even weak evidence, for creationism? If there was, it would be taught. It's not even a good enough theory to be wrong. Get a theory, get a research program, get some evidence, then we'll talk. Poking holes in existing theories is not a theory.

The ID people seem to have it backwards. People go into science because there is a tremendous sense of joy and satisfaction in figuring something out. Unexplained does not mean unexplainable or irreducibly complex. It just means someone has to work hard and figure it out. That is what science is all about. It's not about believing some dogma.

Many ID proponents cling to a 'false consciousness' notion. If only evolutionists weren't blinded by their own intransigent sinful natures ( the world, flesh, devil ), they would see the light and reconsider. I guess I had the opposite reaction when reading the book. It saddened me that so many people are apparently ignorant of all the wealth of evidence supporting evolution. The books are out there, but the will to read them is not.

The question of how we acquire 'knowledge' is a different question than how we 'justify' our knowledge. Humans, in fact, learn 'knowledge' from credible community authorities. It concerns me that we allow religious leaders to spread these beliefs as scientific truths in our community. How many people end up rejecting their traditions later in life when they realize they've been lied to or mindlessly support them because they will never have the privilege of critically engaging them? Are we well served as a society by allowing this to continue?

Do the ID leaders really have a contempt for the human ability to discover truth? Are they really lying for Jesus? To give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe they have the false consciousness and are blinded by their beliefs? show less

This book played an important role in the Dover intelligent design hearings, because of the exhaustive research that demonstrated the "wedge" strategy of using intelligent design to get creationism into the schools - and, ultimately, evolution out. Should be required reading for anyone who thinks intelligent design is substantially different from creationism.