rigelrover wrote:
I agree the debate seems to only be productive, at this point, for those who wish to profit from it.

I hadn't read the wiki-page on Berlinski before, but it is hard to take his arguments seriously if he does not. I rather enjoyed bits of an Uncommon Descent because they were fairly well-written and intelligible, but have not read 'The Devil's Delusion'.

But, in the same way that I do not find Dawkins, nor Hitchens to be convincing public atheists, I have trouble with these leading public ID-er's. I enjoy hearing about new ideas when they are new, and interesting to consider, but after listening to the same accusations, ad hominems, and rhetoric that ignores central issues and presumes much (and too much) in many cases, I would be careful about what I choose to spend time on.

The point I made (xzJoel) above is about this. There are paths that are open outside of the closed debate. The debate revolves around axioms and logic that have been considered definitive on the issues at hand, but do not, fairly, speak about issues outside of it. It chooses to be ignorant of its context, at times (I you allow me to personify the debate), preferring to pick away at the details while pretending to ignore the gestalt reality of its surroundings.

There is not a dichotomy - evolution or intelligent design - it is clear that evolution occurs, but the question of design is fairly open, or perhaps unanswerable.

I would probably read this book if someone gave it to me to read, or recommended it and wanted to talk about it. But I don't think that I would buy it and read it otherwise. If you get it Joel, and want to discuss it here, I would pick up a used copy.