Reply to comment

I keep wondering why Dennett has the compulsive need to repeatedly subordinate religion in his discussion of evolution.  Yes, it is clear that science and theology are two very different disciplines.  Yes, I understand that he believes more strongly in evolution than he does in intelligent design.  Howver, the way he constantly adopts a condescending tone towards religion; such as in his claim that the "kindly God who lovingly fashioned each and every one of us.......that God is, like Santa Claus, a myth of childhood, not anything a sane, undeluded adult could literally believe in...."  is offputting, and less persuasive.

 One of the key ways to lay the groundwork for a convincing argument is to first acknowledge the valid points of the side against which you are arguing. (and if the other side does not have any valid points, then why would you take the time to write a 500-page book on something that is so obvious?)  By acknowleging the valid points of the other side, you meet the members of that side "halfway" so to speak, so that they are more inclined to engage you in debate.  Also, in acknowledging the strong points of the other side at the beginning of your argument, your argument becomes more impressive, because you have shown that you are about to take on a challenge; to show how your argument is even stronger than the already strong argument of the other side.

 First of all, I feel that the counter-argument (or the complicating argument) to evolution (that of intelligent design) is far from childish and naive.  Religion is incredibly complex and nuanced, and the debate between whether to take the word of the Bible literally for figuratively is not something I can ever see being resolved.  Therefore, for those who believe in the story of creation, it is a real challenge to reconcile the undeniably convincing evidence of evolution with their conviction that the words of the Bible speak the truth. 

 Thus, for Dennett to just toss this reality aside makes him look childish and naive.   Plus, he immediately alienates a good chunk of his potential audience; those who are deeply religious.  The result is that there are fewer people that he will be capable of persuading. 

 In the end, I would say that Dennett does more "telling" in this book than "showing." He poses his argument against the theory of intelligent design as more of a rant than as a logical, sophisticated, well-balanced proof.  The result is that his haughty and pretentious tone diverts our attention from his otherwise sound and convincing case for evolution.