It is the creationists who maintain that scientists cannot think for themselves. Which makes it curious that nearly all of creationist arguments in forums like this appear to be copied without acknowledgement from religiously inspired websites. (and almost never from any peer-reviewed literature or real-world observations or experiments)
It must be a good book anyway, because Dembski and Behe endorse it.
Reading through the 5000 word summary of his article it is replete with wilful misunderstandings, canards, straw men, non-sequiturs, and arguments from personal incredulity. To name but a few that he wheels out:
Darwin knew nothing of modern genetics.
Evolution cannot account for human genius.
Darwin's doubts about the fossil record.
Lack of fossil evidence for whales
Evolution characterised as "random" and "coincidence"
Here is a direct quote from the article which gives you an impression of the level of scholarship involved, I don't know about Dembski, but surely Behe must be embarassed by the company he is keeping:
Then again, is surviving a matter of survival of the fittest- or of the luckiest? Questions such as these cloud evolutionary thought. Even the most ardent supporters of the theory of evolution still call it a theory-with very good reason: no knowledgeable scientist has ever called it the "facts of evolution."
A lot of Jehu's other ideas seem to be derived from this book which a quick google turned up for me.
It is the creationists who maintain that scientists cannot think for themselves. Which makes it curious that nearly all of creationist arguments in forums like this appear to be copied without acknowledgement from religiously inspired websites. (and almost never from any peer-reviewed literature or real-world observations or experiments)
B: Creationists are the masters of turn speak.