Editing Intelligent Design (book) (section)

==Reception==
The physicist [[Victor J. Stenger]] criticized the book as "stealth [[creationism]]," and presenting an "argument from design" that "donned yet another set of clothes."<ref name="Stengerreview">{{cite news | url=http://www.csicop.org/sb/2000-12/reality-check.html | title=The Emperor's New Designer Clothes | publisher=[[Skeptical Inquirer]] |date= December 2000 | first=Victor | last=Stenger  | access-date =2008-07-17 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080313093300/http://csicop.org/sb/2000-12/reality-check.html <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archive-date = 2008-03-13}}</ref> Stenger further noted, "While he insists that this argument does not depend on any specific theological assumptions, his book unabashedly promotes his interpretation that the design inferred is the work of the Christian God."<ref name="Stengerreview"/>

Some criticisms also focuses on the technical theory presented, namely, specified complexity and Dembski's statements regarding the law of conservation of information.<ref>[http://www.pcts.org/journal/young2002a.html How to Evolve Specified Complexity by Natural Means], Matt Young</ref><ref name=Rosenhouse>[http://www.math.jmu.edu/~rosenhjd/Detectives.pdf The Design Detectives] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070225203050/http://www.math.jmu.edu/~rosenhjd/Detectives.pdf |date=2007-02-25 }}, Jason Rosenhouse. Assistant Professor, Mathematics, [[James Madison University]]</ref> It has been argued that together they constitute nothing more than a re-statement of the [[second law of thermodynamics]], which is known to permit the development of local concentrations of increased order in the universe provided that there is a counterbalancing increase in disorder elsewhere. Regarding physics, "When Dembski says that information cannot be generated naturally, he seems to be voicing yet another muddled version of the common creationist assertion that the second law forbids the generation of order by natural processes. Like his predecessors, he ignores the caveat "closed system" in the formal statement of the second law."<ref name="Stengerreview"/>

Dembski's reliance on such a controversial and unaccepted model<ref>[[Steven Schafersman]], {{cite web|url=http://www.freeinquiry.com/behe-npr.html |title=Michael Behe and Intelligent Design |access-date=2008-07-10 |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071012142047/http://www.freeinquiry.com/behe-npr.html |archive-date=October 12, 2007 }}
on National Public Radio "Talk of the Nation"</ref> is also not accepted in academia."<ref>{{cite news | url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/intelligent-design-not-accepted-by-most-scientists | title="Intelligent Design" Not Accepted by Most Scientists | publisher=[[National Center for Science Education]] |date= September 10, 2002 | access-date =2009-11-12}}</ref> Critics like Jason Rosenhouse, a mathematics professor, claim ''Intelligent Design'' contributes nothing to the discussion of evolution and intelligent design since Dembski's assertions ride on Behe's claim, and that claim is false.<ref name=Rosenhouse/>