thank you for your response. Unfortunately, as I live and work in Eastern Europe I don’t have a particularly large book budget, and depend a lot on the internet for my learning resources.

I have read through a number of your articles on the designinference site (instead of buying your book, sorry!), and the answers I have obtained from there are:

The design process is still ongoing.
Neo-darwinian evolution is part of the design, but can’t by itself be credited with more complex pieces of design; and can be said to be responsible for micro-evolution and not macro-evolution.

Does this represent an accurate summary?

Thought you guys might find this interesting:

http://www.space.com/scienceas.....atter.html

http://www.sciencenews.org/art.....8/bob9.asp

In the 1970s I began reading most of the major Creationist books, starting with The Genesis Flood. But I’ve got to tell you, the day I put down Johnson’s Darwin on Trial — must have been ten years ago now — I thanked my God to by alive during the era of history when the Darwinists “got theirs.”

“Whang their arses, Dembski!”

It’s rather discouraging that you don’t have sufficient background to understand anything on Stephen J. Gould’s website. I really don’t think you should be commenting here until you do. I’m not formally trained in evolutionary biology and I don’t have any trouble at all understanding Gould’s work. I can only conclude you’re exceedingly wet behind the ears.

Natural selection as a creative force is DEAD IN THE WATER. Get used to it.

When one first ventures outside the bounds of neoDarwinian dogma (I hope you read the wiki article so you know what neodarwinism is now) the first bit of wool to fall one’s eyes illuminates the fiction that is the natural selection canon. One discovers that natural selection is not a creative force in nature and it doesn’t serve to preserve beneficial mutations. Beneficial mutations, don’t you know, happen as all mutations happen, in a single individual. These beneficial mutations in individuals are so very, very slight in the rare cases they’re beneficial at all, that their beneficial effect is swamped (lost in the noise) by the normal factors (luck and environment) that determine how many offspring that individual has. Natural selection is actually a conservative force because when random mutations do happen where it causes a change to a binding site on an enzyme the result is usually disastrous in the short term to the stricken individual’s reproductive success (usually death in the embryonic stage).

In the interest of furthering your education here are some illuminating facts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage

Pay close attention to prevalence and causes.