Two more reviews over the weekend, which further underscore what is going on at Amazon on Design of Life:

1] D Moore ["Evolutionary biologist"]:

Another waste of trees. Chocked full of speculation and misinformation. If we survive the next thousand years, this book and others by the same author will be laughed at. Too bad publishers feel obligated to print this drivel, but maybe that’s the point…..collecting money from the ignorant fools.

Vs,

2] Sean McDowell “High School Teacher”:

As a high school teacher and co-author of the upcoming Understanding Intelligent Design (Harvest House, 2008), I have been eagerly awaiting the release of The Design of Life. While there are many ID books on the market, TDOL is clearly the most up-to-date, well-researched, and eye-opening book–period. It is formatted perfectly for either individual study or university classroom use. While some may disagree with the conclusions of the book, any fair-minded reader would have to admit that TDOL is the most compelling case yet for design in biology. Despite some of the comments listed here at amazon.com (by people who clearly have not read TDOL), it deserves a fair-minded hearing by supporters and opponents alike.

Wells and Dembski have done a stellar job of highlighting huge gaps in the theory of Darwinian evolution and making a persuasive case for ID. Anyone who is interested in the question of our origins must get a copy and read it for themselves. On the back of the book Michael Behe says, “When future intellectual historians list the books that toppled Darwin’s theory, The Design of Life will be at the top.” I couldn’t agree more.

Now, no prizes for guessing which of these is credibly an actual review of the book by someone who has read and thought seriously about it, and which is a 1* dismissal without having seriously considered that the “reviewer” may not have exactly cornered the market on the truth.

In short, the game continues.

But, Darwinistas, we are watching, and we are not impressed by the calibre of arguments we have been seeing. IDC et al, this means you — the rest of the 1* crowd’s mindless ad hominems and the like don’t even rise to the level of arguments.

[NB: I use CROWD very deliberately: the 1* dismissals plainly and objectively show a a breakdown of moral responsibility resulting from being one of an unaccountable, impulsive and easily manipulated group that can act out its aggressive impulses without regard to consequences. Think, long and hard, about what that is telling us on what you Darwinistas are liable to do if you gain the unchecked power in our civilisation that you plainly crave. Or should that be: "do AGIAN," given what your intellectual progenitors HAVE repeatedly done over the past 100 or so years, in the name of "science" and "progress" and "Darwin" . . .]

So, if you would take time to read books such as DOL and actually seriously grapple on the merits with what they are raising, we would be more impressed. And, less inclined to view your behaviour as a warning that calls us to act in self defense before a long train of abuses and usurpations gets beyond possibility of restraint.

As it is, it looks a whole lot like what Socrates must have felt like on coming back into the Athenian cave to try to open minds and thus liberate the denizens, only to be viciously — and in his case, fatally — attacked.

GEM of TKI

PS: Onlookers, why not do a straight or spin test on the reviews over at Amazon, across the 5*, 1* and 3* reviews? Who passes, who fails, why? What should we do?

Thanks for the remarks.

As I continue to review the “reviews” [and comments] at Amazon, I appreciate that Amazon disclaims LEGAL responsibility for the comments on their site. However, I suspect that does not remove moral culpability for hosting slander, personal attacks and outright BIGOTRY. (Cf below.)

Of course if the powers that be there are unresponsive to moral suasion, maybe they deserve to suffer the loss of credibility that Wikipedia is currently suffering, and maybe they will respond when it affects their bottom-line. On track record of say the ending of the slave trade and slavery, such moral suasion will be stoutly resisted and yielding to loss of financial viability will only be a slow process.

In short, yet another battle of financial and public opinion attrition.

Back at Amazon, we are still at 65 reviews, and it is worth the while to feature one of the positive reviews, not least because it exposes the deceptive and contempt-driven nature of the now commonly encountered “standard” Darwinista rebuttal tactics. I guess they have no shame, but we need to understand how they argue in “live” situations, so we can anticipate and/or respond effectively.

So, now, Techie of Kansas, Dec 30:

He is first noteworthy for pointing to UD as a place where the other side of the story can be heard, and second for pointing to the central issue of CSI:

Good Book – Nice summary of Evo RMNS problems, December 30, 2007
By Techie (Kansas) – See all my reviews

See http://www.uncommondescent.com for more details.

I read the book.

This review deals with the issues in the book not the heritage of it’s authors, their shoe sizes, their preference in automobiles or other irrelevant twaddle.

This is an outstanding review of the range of issues facing the Evo RMNS disciples. The best chapter was Chapter 7 – Specified Complexity, which is the biggest issue they face. How do complex and specified things just arise?

S Allen and IDC of course try to rebut, and — predictably — have a triumphalistic Darwinista cheering section.

Excerpting:

[SA] How is the refuted nonsense of specified complexity a “big issue” for anybody? Dembski doesn’t even understand the proper use of the term complexity as it applies to information theory. He mixes concepts from two different theories of information(which is like trying to build a house using standard AND metric measurements). He also conflates complex with information and improbable. Not to mention the entire thing is a tautology. According to his theory evolution can’t produce specified complexity by definition, therefore how else is his theory of “specified complexity” going to respond but by stating that life is “designed”? Dembski’s theory is little better then a quasi math version of Abbot and Costello’s “Who’s on first”.

[IDC:] How do complex and specified things ‘just arise’? The answer is trivially simple through natural processes of regularity and chance. In fact, few realize that Dembski has accepted this. For instance the work by Tom Schneider shows how the processes of variation and selection can trivially create complex specified information. Dembski ‘argues’ that this information is smuggled in, but it is not different from the information ‘smuggled in’ by the environment.

1 –> In short, the question is distorted then begged by exploiting the ignorance and presumed disinclination of the likely audience to check out the other side of the story. [Cf my always linked, for details.]

2 –> SA, first, FYI: as my always linked, Appendix 3 will show,WD DID NOT ORIGINATE THE CONCEPT OF COMPLEX, SPECIFIED INFORMATION. Leslie Orgel et al did, in the natural course of OOL research across the 1970′s; as they realised that living things exhibited a pattern that is not just complex in the sense of high contingency, and not just ordered in the sense that say a crystal (or a vortex) are ordered, i.e. — and as I outline for newbies in my always linked — living systems exhibit functionally specified, often fine-tuned [i.e adversely sensitive to random perturbations beyond as very limited scale], organised complexity that requires algorithmic, coded information to work:

Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.6 [Source: L.E. Orgel, 1973. The Origins of Life. New York: John Wiley, p. 189.]

3 –> In short, CSI, originally developed as a DESCRIPTION of on- the- ground- facts to be explained by thinkers on the origin of life. FYI IT IS A LITTLE HARD TO REFUTE A MASSIVELY DOCUMENTED — not at all “refuted” — FACT.

4 –> Next, however “complexity” may be used by other thinkers on information in other situations, it is an obviously valid use of the term to describe situations of extremely high contingency such that the configuration space taken up by all possible permutations involves significantly more “cells” than the number of possible quantum states taken up by the 10^80 or so particles in our observed cosmos across its credible lifetime. (This quantifies “complexity” by use of a greater than metric. In effect if there are more than about 500 – 1,000 bits worth of information storing capacity in a system, it is complex in the sense that is relevant.)

5 –> Further to this, the complexity is used not just in any old random way, but to effect functionally specified, algorithmically coded — i.e. complex — information that carries out life processes that are sensitive in general to random perturbation. In short, there are well defined relatively isolated points, islands and archipelagos of relevant functionality within the config spaces in question. For instance, minimally functional cells, as Meyer reported in the PBSW article, require roughly 300 – 500,000 DNA bases in their genetic code, to cover the proteins etc for life to work. Just 300k 4-state elements sets a config space of order 9.94 *10^180,617 cells. [This is vastly more than the 10^150 or so states that the 10^80 particles of our observed cosmos will take up across its credible lifespan.] “Complexity” is a reasonable description, and the functionally specified cells are plainly going to be seriously isolated int eh relevant config space.

6 –> Thus, a random-walk search [even with functionality filtering at each stage – aka “natural selection” of one kind or another] that begins at any arbitrary point in that space, will be maximally unlikely to EVER reach a functional configuration relevant to life, on the gamut of our observed universe.

7 –> At the same time, we see, even routinely, a source of just such FSCI. Namely, intelligent agents. Indeed, in EVERY observed case of such – pace IDC – where we do know directly the causal story, the directly observed source of FSCI is agency. And, given what we just outlined, that is highly unsurprising [Cf here, my discussion of nanobots and microjets in a vat, to see the force of the underlying statistical thermodynamics and information theory issues and principles at work.] Thus, on inductive inference to best explanation, the most credible source for such FSCI where we just happened not to have seen it s cause directly is again agency.

8 –> When therefore IDC attempts to “reduce” agency to chance + necessity [as has been long since addressed above, fr. Comments 29 – 30 and onward to the summary in 86 – 87, which stand unanswered by him to this date], he is whistling in the dark as he goes by the graveyard. BOO! [And, BTW, Mr Schneider over at Talk Origins, as is all too usual for that utterly untrustworthy and even at points plainly intellectually shabby site, does not know what he is talking about -- on a charitable reading.]

9 –> In this context, IDC’s last comment at Dec 28, is all too revealing of the whistling past the graveyard in the dark mentality:

As others have already pointed out, CSI is an incredibly UNRELIABLE indicator of design as it is an argument from ignorance which cannot even compete with the ‘we don’t know’ explanation as it proposes nothing. So why call the null hypothesis ‘design’? [NB: In the explanatory filter of course the null hyp is non-design and the filter is chosen to be so biased towards making false negatives that would affirm the nuill if a design is not sufficiently complex that it would be ridiculous in any other contexts! And, since when is the vast experience and observation of agents directly producing FSCI “nothing”?] Why should ‘design’ be granted such a privileged position? [Actually, as it is structured, the EF gives its NULL: necessity and/or chance, the privileged positions as the two successive defaults: [a] non-contingent, necessity; [b] non-specific, chance.] There seems to be no scientific reason although I can understand that there may be some strong religious motivations that would help explain such a choice . . . [he then cotes the "logos comment made by WD in a Touchstone commentary in his role as a philospher with theorlogical qualifications. IDEAs FAQs have long since answered this quote-mining distortion of ID here.]

10 –> IDC, since when has chance + necessity alone been shown through direct observation to create FSCI in the sense described above? By whom, where, and with what credibility? [Not to mention, if there is a law of the universe that forces the emergence of cell-based life, what would that imply, given the issues raised in my always linked, section D on cosmological fine-tuning? (Hint: what would best account for the required algorithmic information written into the laws and parameters of the cosmos, given that they are exquisitely finely tuned in the aggregate? H'mm: wouldn't that count as "in the beginning LOGICALLY AND DYNAMICALLY STRUCTURED INFORMATION was . . . and WITHOUT THIS LOGOS WAS NOT ANYTHING MADE, THAT WAS MADE?) Nah . . . justa coincidence! NOT]

11 –> And of course, IDC then (having failed to resolve the matter on the merits) improperly resorts to igniting the usual anti-theistic hostility of Darwinistas. There is a name for that IDC: BIGOTRY.

In short, IDC: BOOO!

GEM of TKI

As I understand it, no as pertaining to reader comments — providing the post are not edited by the website owner.

So life should look like it was the result of multiple designers instead? Looks like somebody needs to read the Biotic Message by ReMine.

IMHCO,this alone is more than sufficient to give the lie to the mindlessly repeated claim that ID thinkers do not do publishable professional grade research, and the associated philosophically question-begging and historically unjustified allegation that ID is “not science.” [Cf Dan Peterson's telling review on the culture war that has now exploded even into reader reviews at Amazon. Notice in particular his remarks on the contribution of design thinkers to the advance of science.]

Moreover, in light of the notorious events over Mr Sternberg and Mr Gonzalez, we ALSO know that there is a Darwinista campaign of censorship, career busting, calumny, slander and libel to discredit such ID research and researchers.

[Surprise, the DOL pseudo-review campaign is plainly yet another stanza on this sickening song of oppression and injustice by advocates of a world view that is in a lot of trouble on the merits: evolutionary materialism. Shades of the deceptive en-darkenment and destructive power games by the power-brokers in Plato's Cave!]

That, too should tell us a lot, and none of it good on the evo mat agendas, which — as the pseudo-reviews at Amazon on DOL all too bluntly tell us — plainly ARE about political control by a destructive ideological agenda that has corrupted science, education and the culture at large, not free play of informed discussion on serious ideas and issues.

Cho man, do betta dan dat!

GEM of TKI

Darby M’Graw then completes the Darwinista strike-out:

You were expecting original arguments in an ID book? Dude, you have so not been paying attention for the last century and a half. IDers don’t do any research. Go read the Wedge Document and find out what ID is really about.

–> I guess the list of peer -reviewed publications at the DI web site does not count.

Nor, plainly, does Minnich’s research presented in open court to Judge “Copycat” Jones who then went on to deny the facts in front of him, on the advice of the dishonest advocates over at ACLU and NCSE.

As to socio-cultural agendas, I guess the obvious evidence that the response of DI is to an existing and open secularist agenda does not count: HE HIT BACK FIRST again.

4] On the Wedge strategy . . .

BTW, for readers’ information, this is what the “infamous” Wedge Strategy is, in core essence [the entire document can be perused at the linked page]:

In 1996 Discovery Institute established the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (since named the Center for Science and Culture—CSC). Its main purposes were (1) to support research by scientists and other scholars who were critical of neo- Darwinism and other materialistic theories of origins, and to support those who were developing the emerging scientific theory of intelligent design; (2) to explore the larger philosophical or world-view implications of the scientific debate about design as well other philosophically-charged issues in modern science, and (3) to explore the cultural implications of competing philosophies of science and worldviews. With respect to (2) and (3), it has been a particular interest of the Center to counter the idea that science supports the unscientific philosophy of materialism.

From the beginning the Center has focused its attention on scientific discoveries and theories that raise larger philosophical, world-view or cultural issues.1 For this reason, Center Fellows examined theories of biological and cosmological origins as well as theories in the social and cognitive sciences that raise questions about human nature. More recently, the Center has begun to address bioethical issues arising from developments in bio-medical technology.

It is in the context of our concern about the world-view implications of certain scientific theories that our wedge strategy must be understood. Far from attacking science (as has been claimed), we are instead challenging scientific materialism—the simplistic philosophy or world-view that claims that all of reality can be reduced to, or derived from, matter and energy alone. We believe that this is a defense of sound science.

With this in mind, we have supported research that challenges specific theories (such as neo-Darwinism, chemical evolutionary theory and various “many worlds” cosmologies) that provide support for the materialistic vision of a self-existent and self-organizing universe.

We also have supported research that challenges theories (such as behaviorism, strong AI (artificial intelligence) and other physicalist conceptions of mind) that have portrayed humans as completely determined animals or machines.

Naturally, many of our scholars and scientists are also working to develop competing hypotheses and theories, including theories of intelligent design and theories that defend the reality and irreducibility of human agency, responsibility and consciousness.

As it happens, many of these fellows think that new discoveries in science either support, or are consonant with, a “broadly theistic” world-view. The “Wedge Document” makes the philosophical significance of our work—its challenge to scientific materialism and its favorable implications for theism—known to potential supporters. Even so, the case that our scientists have made against neo-Darwinism or for design is based on scientific evidence. Scientists of various (and no) religious persuasions have formulated such arguments (see below). Their work stands on its own.

In any case, the “Wedge Document” articulates a strategy for influencing science and culture with our ideas through research, reasoned argument and open debate. As our not-so-secret secret document put it, “without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade.”

We fail to see any scandal in this. Nor have we been able see how any fair-minded person who had actually read the “Wedge Document,” or who had any acquaintance with our actual work, could attribute to us the nefarious views and motives that Professor Forrest and others have assigned us. The “Wedge Document” articulates a plan for reasoned persuasion, not political control.

For shame, Dr Forrest and fellow Darwinistas!

Uncle Charlie is turning in his grave over at Westminster Abbey on what his supporters have become!

GEM of TKI

I took a further follow-up look at the Darwinista “reviews” and see evidence of outright slander and possible libel. (Are not the Amazon people responsible for the contents of their web site?)

At minimum, several of the tactics and claims exposed below need to be brought to the attention of the public so they can see for themselves what is going on on the ID issue on the part of the Darwinistas.

Maybe the below and some previous stuff needs to become part of Expelled, as someone else suggested.

Okay, to monitoring:

–> The reviews count on DOL is the same this AM, 65.

–> The Darwinista “gaming” pseudo-reviews still dominate the “most helpful” list.

I decidewd to take a look at the Marshall, 3* review and see what happened with comments:

1] Strike ONE . . .

For instance, here is S Allen’s attempt to answer to Marshall’s unanswered request on “instances of mutations that produce helpful biological innovations”:

1. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria
2. Lactose tolerance
3. Resistance to atherosclerosis
4. Immunity to HIV

Just to name a few. You can find a larger list plus details here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

–> In short, this Darwinista — duly having been misled by TalkOrigins and the like ilk of dishonest advocates — has not seen that there is a major difference between minor changes to existing biological information systems and the required evo mat mechanisms to credibly sustain origin of life and body-plan level biodiveristy.

This alone is sufficient justification for the need for a current basic, textbook level survey of the issue of design as it pertains to biological systems that are rich in functionally specified, complex information.

Of course, DOL is precisely such a textbook, pace all the Darwinista objections to such a presentaiton. Their own ignorance betrays their arguments!

2] Strike TWO . . and TWO-A

Peter Irons [of "Mr Kwok can freely personally attack Dr Dembski in the name of a review but Dr Dembski cannot properly complain about it" infamy, rated as the no 1 "most helpful review . . ."]] then weighs in with this “helpful” piece:

David Marshall’s review provides a good place to note that the “Star Wars” battle over Dembski’s book was actually started (on Dec. 20) by Denyse O’Leary on the Uncommon Descent blog she co-edits with Dembski, who had whined on UD about the very first one-star review by John Kwok. Dembski briefly persuaded the Amazon people to remove Kwok’s review

–> In fact, Denyse responded at Dr Dembski’s request to an already mounting Darwinista gaming of the reviews, DECEMBER 19, here.

Opening words:

Bill Dembski has drawn my attention to the Darwinists who vote up negative reviews at Amazon of Design of Life, his textbook supplement with Jonathan Wells, on whose behalf I blog at Design of Life blog. He writes,

>>[WD] The Design of Life has 13 five-star reviews and 4 one-star reviews. None of the one-star reviews give evidence of the reviewer having read the book. [This, I confirmed here at comment no 7 on the Dec 19 O'Leary thread in my own first review on the "reviews."] Yet the three reviews placed front and center by Amazon are the one-star reviews and none of the five-star reviews appear there. That’s because the Darwinists keep voting up the negative reviews and voting down the positive reviews. Please go to the link right now, look at the reviews, and vote on them (toward the bottom of a review are “yes” and “no” buttons for whether a review was helpful).>>

These naysayers may not be people who have read the book. Any more than the Darwinbots who assailed the showing of The Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian can be presumed to have seen the film. (Had they done so, they would have known that the film was not “anti-evolution”, as a New York Times reporter had incorrectly reported).

The Darwinbot’s duty is not to see or hear or know, but merely to stupidly protest.

–> And now there is a twisting of the truth of the narrative through this second “HE HIT BACK FIRST” complaint.

Later in the same commen Mr Irons goes on to claim that “I caught Dembski in a case of “attempted copyright violation” in his book.”

Namely, he claims that:

The problem for Dembski is that the illustration (a still capture from a video) is from a pro-ID video called “Unlocking the Mystery of Life,” while the “as seen at” footnote refers to a video called “The Inner Life of the Cell.” What happened was that Dembski originally wanted to use (without permission of the “Inner Life” copyight holders) a still from their video, and put the purloined still in his book. But, after Dembski was caught using the “Inner Life” video in a lecture in September at the University of Oklahoma, prompting the copyright holders to complain loudly, Dembski stripped the “Inner Life” still from his book and substituted the “Unlocking” still. But he forgot to also strip the incriminating footnote, citing the “Inner Life” still. Not a really big deal, since Dembski aborted his intended copyright violation. But this episode, IMO, reflects poorly on his integrity and undermines the book’s credibility.

–> As I understand it of course there is a very different side to that story, as was reported here at UD Nov 22 by Dr Dembski:

in September of 2006 I announced at my blog UncommonDescent that a “breathtaking video” titled “The Inner Life of Cell” had just come out . . . The video was so good that I wanted to use it in some of my public presentations, but when I tried to purchase a DVD of it (I sent several emails to relevant parties), I was informed it wasn’t ready . . . .

Although the video was at the time and remains to this day widely available on the web (YouTube has many copies — go, for instance, here), most simply have some background music that do not explain the relevant biology. A few months after announcing the video at UncommonDescent, I found on the Internet a version of the video that did add a voiceover, giving the relevant biology, and was in a format that allowed me to incorporate it into my PowerPoint presentations. I used the video a handful of times, including at a talk in Oklahoma this September. In consequence, some biologist(s) in the audience contacted the makers of the video, falsely suggesting to them and on the web:

(1) That I myself had modified the video and given it a new soundtrack.
(2) That I had stripped it of its copyright information.
(3) That I had retitled it “The Cell as an Automated City.”

Each of these allegations is false. Regarding (1), I downloaded from the Internet a version of the video with a voiceover describing the relevant biology. It seemed to me accurate and to have the best educational value for my listeners. The version I used took the original soundtrack, which simply had music, and added a voice. I had nothing to do with modifying or recrafting or authorizing the production of the video (in particular, that is not my voice on the video). The video I showed is the one I downloaded.

Regarding (2), the version I used omitted the opening credits (a fact about which I became aware only in the last few days), beginning instead with the actual animation; however, at the end of the video that I showed, there is the following copyright notice:

Conception and Scientific Content
by Alain Viel and Robert A. Lue
Animations by John Liebler / XVIVO
Supported by the Howard Hughest Medical Institute
Copyright (c) 2006. The President and Fellows of Harvard College . . . .

Finally, regarding (3), the phrase “The Cell as an Automated City” was simply a caption for the video as it appeared in my PowerPoint presentation (a caption I used in context with the preceding slide). It was never meant to be a retitling of the video. Indeed, that caption never bled into the actual video but was always separate from it in my PowerPoint presentation.

I continue to this day to think that “The Inner Life of the Cell” is the best animation illustrating cellular activity. But there are other videos that make the same point. From now on, I will no longer use it and instead go back to using a clip from “Unlocking the Mystery of Life.”

–> this puts a very different colour on Mr Irons’ claims, and not in his favour at all.

But also, notice the CONSISTENT rhetorical pattern: we see yet again the use of unjustified personal attack in the hope that it will distract people from looking at the case on the merits.

–> And, if one uses a clip from a source pending permission while a book is in draft, but withdraws it from the book on failing to obtain permission [which is what the cited evidence obviously substantiates], that is NOT stealing, Mr Irons.

–> Worse, the actual evidence of the videos is that the macromolecules of life in play in the cells information systems are of course vastly beyond the reach of chance + necessity on the gamut f the observed cosmos.

[ . . . ]

VERY well said!

I think I can let your remark stand as the final word on the substantial issues raised by Q.

On observing that Q reportedly works in the US education system, with ACLU et al breathing over his shoulder and lawsuits or dismissals threatening at the drop of a hat or an unguarded politically incorrect remark — shades of of days and places one had thought were relegated to the darker pages of history — I think we can now understand the dilemma he faces; thanks to the Judge “copycat” Joneses et al of this world.

–> For shame, ACLU! For shame, NCSE!

–> For double-shame, Ms Barbara Forrest!

–> For double-dip double-shame, US and world Media!

–> For triple-dip, triple-shame, educators and academics!

For quintuple-dip, five- times- five- thousand- quintillion- times over shame, educated people as a class!

For, it is plain that the design inference is so strong that it is compelling on the merits.

So strong in fact that the only way to resist it in the secularism-distorted educational setting of the USA is to resort to patent absurdirties stemming from rejecting self-evident truth about ourselves and other intelligent agents!

The above thread is proof enough of that.

Maybe, Design of Life and other similar works can help us climb out of the hole we have dug ourselves into.

That of course brings us to the look at the state of the Amazon “reviews” mess.

A second reasonable review has happened in recent days, though marred by an unreasonable expectation of the book, that it should be in effect a new research compilation and the dismissal of cogent arguments. But read it, the second 3* review, here.

A flavour-giving excerpt of Mr Marshall’s effort:

It’s actually a pretty good overview of the ID position, by and large. I was surprised to find it came in the form of a sort of textbook, with study questions at the end of each chapter — I was hoping for something more on the order of original research and arguments. Strangely, though, at times the authors explain very elementary terms, then later will use several technical terms in short order, without explaining them.

The book is well-illustrated. The chapter on the origin of life sets the issues out particularly well. I’m wary, though, of the post hoc view of chemical evolution (230) — what’s the chance of lucky combinations of amino acids forming a certain protein, for example. The real question is, what structures would they form, and would those structures prove useful? But the authors make some good points about chemical barriers to biogenesis.

As reflected by the reviews, it seems to me the authors often take positions that are too argumentative. “Analyzing existing species to support one or another theory of speciation, however, is not the same as observing speciation in action.” (98) Of course not, but come on — you can’t just ignore the similarities. “The fossil record doesn’t support the Darwinian claim that the major taxonomic groups are connected to one another by biological descent.” Doesn’t support at all? Such a sweeping generalization strikes me as folly. Or have they found a rabbit in the Cambrian?

I’m also tired of the ID argument that similarity in living things could be explained just as well by a common designer as by a common ancestry (140); this seems terribly ad hoc to me. God could just as well be entirely original with each new species.

I should note en passant, that when one is providing a balancing work and is int he context of comparative difficulties across live options, one is not making a circular argument. It is the unreasonable demand to present the evolutionary materialist view of origins as though it were established unquestionable fact doubted only by the “ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked” that is circular and in this context an utterly indefensible resort to indoctrination and mind manipulation in the classroom.

A glance at the comments on the Jurassicmark review starts with John Kwok’s — obviously habitual — personal attack and name-calling, then it heads south from there.

Brent Mortimer replied at first in kind, then after several comments presented a reasonable outline of the ID case — it was voted down just like his other comments; so that one has to explicitly request that the post be shown. [And, Mr Kwok -- a self-proclaimed libertarian! -- has the nerve to call Dr Dembski a "fascist" and advocate of censorship for objecting to Mr Kwok's own earlier personal attack in the name of a "review"???]

Sad, and ever so telling on Mr Kwok and ilk.

With the long train of abuses and usurpation now on repeated public view, we would be well advised to recognise the Darwinistas as would-be tyrants, and to turn back their power grabs — before it is too late.

GEM of TKI

Your comments on induction make it clear that you are still bound by the Hume/Kant imperative, which, in effect, reduces all inferences to a presupposition.. Unless, you consult Adler’s “little error at the beginning,” you will continue to doubt the integrity of your own mind.

In approaching this problem, we have only two choices. Either we accept the paradox of theism (dualism) or we must live with the contradictions and self refuting absurdities of materialism (monism). In other words, we have a choice between truth (in the form of “virtual certainty” not apodictic certainty) and error (unreasonable uncertainly or hyper-skepticism)

A designer’s mind is not bound to the physical laws of cause and effect, even though the designer’s body most certainly is. This is a paradox; it is not a contradiction. Our mind is independent of and can cause changes in the physical universe, while our brain is, at the same time, subject to those same laws. If you cannot understand or refuse to accept the distinction between the mind and the brain, you cannot acknowledge the connection between the immaterial agent and the material causal chain.

Hearken back to my example about the mind as the causal agent that arranges matter in such a way that a house is brought into existence. By your logic, we cannot, without having had prior experience on the matter, safely assume that an intelligent agent started the ball rolling. In effect, you are rejecting the kind of self-evident truth the makes rationality possible in the first place. You are doing the very same thing that Hume/Kant influenced so many to do—reject the correspondence between our mind and the real world. I notice that you did not follow up on my suggestion to consult Adler and his explanation of the “little error in the beginning,” Instead you chose to visit Wikipedia, who has made it their business, either through ignorance or malice, to institutionalize this error. So why would you send us to that site for “instruction.”

In fact, there is nothing to prevent us from reasoning our way all the way back to the first agent as an originating cause. The ultimate designer, as immaterial agent (perhaps a pure non- material spirit and not a composite of body and soul [mind] as we are), need not be “in” the causal chain to be a causal agent. Remember, the non-material can influence the material without being material. If the ultimate designer is God, then God is outside those laws even as He brings them into being and sustains them. That means that he in not bound by his own laws. If you question this argument, then you must also question Aristotle’s “prime mover” argument as well. Moving backwards in the causal chain allows us to conclude only the EXISTENCE of an intelligent agency—not its essence or its identity. The designer’s ATTRIBUTES must be a matter or philosophical speculation or religious belief, or, as in the case of human agency, prior experience, because science simply cannot take us there. We should think neither too little (Hume/Kant skepticism) nor too much (apodictic certainty) concerning what reason can do.

There is no real disagreement between kairosfocus and myself about the level of confidence involved. I am not positing, as you suggest, that the inference is merely a best guess. My conditional language acknowledges only the line between “virtual certainty” and “apodictic certainty.” From a scientific perspective we accept virtual certainty as truth because it is the only rational way to live. Hyper-skepticism bids us to live in the twilight zone between virtual certainty and apodictic certainty. Cynics often visit that land but no really lives there. As someone once put it, “even the solipsist looks both ways before crossing the street.”