Here’s how the bait and switch works in creationism… excuse me, Intelligent Design. It’s appears to be so ingrained to the psyche of the creationists and ID proponents that they don’t even realize that they are doing it. But let’s watch the action unfold shall we…
July 17th David Klinghoffer quotes a pro-ID commenter at Evolution News and Views
I found it funny that Jerry Coyne did not want to review the book because he was not a paleontologist and that he would leave it up to them, but he supported Nick [Matzke]’s review even though he is not a paleontologist. Why did he not quote a paleontologist who read the book? – See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/regarding_matzk074561.html#sthash.qsl1YTpt.dpuf
Klinghoffer responds with
That is a good question. Casey Luskin has already demonstrated what a non-paleontologist Matzke is. – See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/regarding_matzk074561.html#sthash.qsl1YTpt.dpuf
Now regardless of what you think of the book, Matzke’s KSAs (knowledge, skills, and abilities) are (or Luskin’s for that matter), we have a demand. Get a paleontologist to review the book.
Donald Prothero is a paleontologist. From Wikipedia
Donald Ross Prothero (February 21, 1954) is an American paleontologist, geologist, and author who specializes in mammalian paleontology. His research has been in the field ofmagnetostratigraphy, a technique to date rock layers of the Cenozoic era and its use to date the climate changes which occurred 30-40 million years ago. He is currently the author or editor of more than 30 books and over 250 scientific papers, including five geology textbooks.
You can read his review of Darwin’s Doubt. But, as predictable as the sunrise, the creationists, including our own Rex Tugwell, don’t like it. Here’s what Rex has to say about Dr. Prothero’s review.
As expected, Prothero offers one passing reference to epigenetics and none to early embryological development. Yet these are important to the book’s thesis. BTW, why does Prothero recommend Erwin and Valentine’s book (“The Cambrian Explosion”) but fails to name it? Could it be that the very title contradicts his claim that it was more of a diversification or radiation?.
That’s right. Rex ignores the paleontologist’s comments in his area of expertise and, instead, demands that a paleontologist start discussing epigentics and embryological development.
Tell me Rex, do you also demand that your plumber explain why the heart medication you may be prescribed makes your head hurt?
Now, I freely admit that Rex was not involved in Klinghoffer’s comments. That’s not the point.
The point is that when experts review their areas of expertise, they are ignored and instead required to explain areas that they are not experts in. But this is how ID and creationism work. They DO NOT engage in discussion for the sake of learning or for the sake of determining an answer. They engage in discussion to confuse, intimidate, redirect, and obfuscate. The goal is not to learn or educate, but to convince, by any means necessary, that they have something valuable to say.
I have seen this activity time and again in the creationist arena.
I’m doing a chapter-by-chapter review of Darwin’s Doubt and unlike most of the reviewers, I’m going to try to do a full tear-down, piece by piece with supporting references. Of course, the creationists will claim that I’m not an expert in paleontology, embryology, genetics or anything else. That’s fine. If a guy with no training in those fields can write the book, then I (with some training in all of those fields) can take it apart.
It’s not about who’s doing the work, but the quality of the work.
Oh and Rex, you might want to look up the “explosion”… I mean I know 70-80 million years is an eyeblink to the age of Earth, but when one has several generations per year, it’s a long time. Indeed, a lot of current research indicates that the rate of change was no different in the Cambrian than in any other time in the history of life. And punctuated equilibria explains it perfectly well.