It is here. If you want a take that throughly trashes the book, well then this is it. But of course, that's not surprising, given that the book not only criticizes Myers but, indeed, identifies him as part of the problem. Still, someone perusing the reviews so far might wonder, how is it that Michael Mann of RealClimate, or Chad Orzel, or James Hrynyshyn like the book, but PZ Myers (someone criticized in it) does not? Let's quote Mann on his own blog, after someone linked to Myers' review:
PZ Myers strongly disagrees, calling the book “utterly useless”. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/unscientific_america_how_scien.php
[Response: Yes, he does. I respect PZ views on many matters. Here however, even by his own admission, his objectivity is likely compromised: He is at the receiving end of a fair degree of criticism in the book. The subjects explored in the book, especially the delicate and often awkward intersection of science and religion, tend to excite great passion and fierce disagreements. I'll let my appraisal of the book stand on its own merit, but I'd encourage folks to read the book and form their own opinions. -mike]
We certainly agree. Indeed, it appears that judging the book based on what New Atheists say about it, alone, could lead you to make pretty strong factual errors about its contents. Consider what happens in this blog comment thread to one Jim Lippard: see here, here, here, and finally here--where after making various false claims about our book's contents, Lippard admits to not having read it.
Perhaps judging a book critical of the New Atheists based on what the New Atheists say about it on blogs it is hazardous to your understanding.
We'll have much more to say about Myers' criticisms of the book soon.
