This is amusing. Alister and Joanna Collicut McGrath have written a book called The Dawkins Delusion: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, and because it rips a well-known “Darwinist,” the ID brigade is obligated to support it despite its members’ trenchant and ongoing insistence that ID and God really have nothing to do with each other, except when they do, which is all the time, as long as no one says it out loud.
It’s like a twisted invocation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: God and the DI are bedfellows only when no one argues the point, as arguing neatly knocks God out of consideration until pro-science folks stop being accusatory. That is, the product of the uncertainly in God-talk and that in ID-talk cannot exceed a certain constant, although this constant’s value is unknown.
Anyway, DI flackmaster Casey Luskin writes:
When my copy of Alister and Joanna Collicut McGrath’s The Dawkins Delusion: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine recently arrived, I was struck by its short length. I immediately wondered if it was short because Richard Dawkins himself provided scant substance in his The God Delusion to which to respond. According to the McGraths, my suspicions were correct.
Right; either that, or all of the evidence for the deity subscrbed to by Luskin and the McGraths could fit between two book covers fused together by Krazy Glue. Or, for that matter, between a couple of quarks belonging to the same atom.
Although Casey’s straight-faced endorsement of this book is to be expected, it’s still cause for a chuckle, from his admission that the book really has next to nothing to do with ID to his claim that it “covers an impressive array data from many fields.” What is really a hoot, though, is this excerpt, where the McGraths are trying to build a case against Dawkins’ assertion that a conscious designer of the cosmos would have to be hopelessly complex and is therefore highly improbable at best:
Perhaps we need to appreciate that there are many things that seem improbable–but improbability does not, and never has, entailed nonexistence.
Except, of course, when a creationist wants to rail against the statistical unlikelihood of evolution (typically using meaningless ad hoc numbers). In these cases improbablity always specifies impossibility.
And so the circus continues.