Physicist Mark Perakh critically reviews recent trends toward harmonizing religion and science. From intelligent design theories to arguments allegedly proving the compatibility of biblical stories with scientific data and "Bible codes" containing secret messages, Perakh shows that, however sophisticated in appearance, all such approaches are little more than tailoring evidence to fit the desired theory.
Beginning with the design theorists, Perakh provides a detailed critique of the publications of William Dembski, Michael Behe, and Phillip Johnson. In each case he clearly demonstrates lack of substantiation, internal contradictions, and multiple fallacies that mar their works.
In Part Two he critiques the "mental acrobatics" of various Christian and Jewish writers whose works attempt to prove such unlikely propositions as: the inerrancy of the Bible, the harmony of the Torah and science, the duration of the six days of creation, and deriving a theory of nonrandom evolution from the Talmud.
Part Three describes how genuine science is conducted, what the laws of science actually mean to practicing scientists, and what distinguishes real science from pseudoscience.
In conclusion, Perakh discusses the rise and fall of the so-called Bible code as an example of how well-marketed pseudoscience can successfully cloak itself in the mantle of science.
For everyone interested in separating scientific facts from the hype of trendy theories about science, this book is must reading.
50 pages matching hypothesis in this book
Results 1-3 of 50
What people are saying - Write a review
LibraryThing ReviewUser Review - quantum_flapdoodle - LibraryThing
This book challenges the idea of intelligent design. The author specifically addresses William Dembski, Michael Behe, and Philip Johnson, then turns his attention to various works arguing for the ... Read full review
Review: Unintelligent DesignUser Review - Charles - Goodreads
I'd give this four stars for reading alone, but five stars because it absolutely devastates the Intelligent Design arguments. It systematically refutes the entire ID movement. Game over! Or it should be if folks actually approached this topic with their reason instead of their emotions. Read full review
How William Dembski
14 other sections not shown