Talk:Climbing Mount Improbable

Book reviews

I don't understand why this article only has a 'critical' review (of the article's subject) from a creationist site and that my edit adding amazon.com reviews (of the same) was reverted. Could someone explain please? 82.16.91.162 11:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC) - this was me PeterCT 11:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC), finally got an account.

Why did I remove a link to some Amazon reviews, written by God knows who, and which weren't even about the book in question? I can't imagine. Laurence Boyce 12:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nuts, posted the wrong reviews, my apologies. I'll try to find a better review elsewhere, I think the AiG review does not stand well on its own. Sarcasm isn't necessary. PeterCT 12:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll be adding a Slate.com review[1] later on, any objections? Input?

I could also add DannyReviews review[2] and / or bostonreview.net review[3], however, my preference is the slate.com one (first link) alone. PeterCT 19:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I am deleting the link to the answers in genesis review, as the review was quite childish and the link, rather unneeded. We dont need to drag the Creationism vs Darwinism debate into this article, though I think links to unbiased, professional reviews of both a critical and complimentary nature should be added. --203.59.166.123 10:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

So what if it's "childish"? Creationism almost always is. Dawkins pisses off many creationists, they review his books, so why not link to it so readers can make up their OWN minds? By the way, similar articles are linked to in the main Richard Dawkins article (quite properly IMO) so I don't see why it should be different here. Mikker ^(...) 00:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see the point, creationist articles are rarely neutral - including this one. However, I not really bothered if it stays either, so long as there's also a neutral review as well. PeterCT 07:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I tend to be in favour of including these AiG links. Incidentally, they appear to have changed their name to Creation Ministeries International. Whatever one thinks about the content, the presentation and annotation of the review is of a high quality. Laurence Boyce 09:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not opposed to having an Answers in Genesis like review linked to in the main Richard Dawkins article, but I do not feel that it has a place in this one. The Slate review is quite critical, yet reasonable, and it is clear that the book has been approached from a neutral angle. --203.59.166.123 11:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Why only in the main article specifically? Wouldn't a review of a particular book better fit in the article with the book? PeterCT 16:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm only in favour of them when they stand with others, otherwise its undue weight on one view in my opinion. However, since all notable views are supposed to be represented, it makes sense for an AiG review to be there with others - especially since they meet all requirements of a good source. I can see why they changed the name, really its Answers In Our Interpretation Of Genesis, a more literal interpretation would be different from their views in quite a number of ways. PeterCT 16:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

All views should be represented, so I believe links to positive reviews, negative reviews and neutral reviews should all be present. However, the AiG "review" is more of an attack on Dawkins and evolution than anything else. This article is about the book, not Richard Dawkins or Evolution. --203.59.166.123 08:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok... so most ppl seem to want it included. Shall we add it back? Mikker ^(...) 23:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Laurence Boyce 10:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind :) PeterCT 11:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Mount Improbable as an Explanatory Device

I was just watching a video of Richard Dawkins, using a model mountain he called "Mount Improbable" to explain evolution. Searching wikipedia for "Mount Improbable" leads to this article, on his book. Should there be a page on Mount Improbable, as a literary device (or whatever you'd call it) for explaining how evolution creates improbable things? Or maybe a section of this page devoted to the mountain concept, as opposed to the book? 74.14.122.167 (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's called a fitness landscape; as you would find out if you read either the article or the book itself. I am not a dog (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)