How Blind Is the Watchmaker?: Nature's Design & the Limits of Naturalistic Science

To Fairfax. 1. I doubt you read the book.2. Instead of fundamentally denying all merit why not provide simple examples that refute the claims, so idiots like me can understand why evolution seems to be so adept at selecting and expanding on "good" mutations, while intuitively we would expect to see mostly "bad" mutations.Working in the computer world, which I would guess is far different from the natural world, the Dembski arguments about information theory and information improvement vs. atrophy make sense. Show me mathmatically why he is wrong or at least point me in the direction.I love your argument about "It's all baseless. If you don't believe us just ask us." Never was such a circular argument so useless. By the same reasoning Hitler was not a threat to world peace in 1939 because you could have asked a majority of people, especially in the US and they would have told you not to confront him.I may buy the book just on your non-recommendation.

The Australian professor, previously unknown to me, has presented what appealed to me as a fresh perspective on the Watchmaker. It is the author's hope to attract readers to another pathway than "the arid desert of naturalism." The book challenged my own thinking.

Notice how one of the naturalists below can do nothing but wave his arms and yell? That's how weak naturalism has become. They put out more and more junk in an last ditch attempt to stop Intelligent Design Theory. IDT grows in popularity because it is real science, not someone's irrational personal beliefs like naturalism is. Perhaps they should go back to high school and relearn the scientific method. Broom is to be commended on is well argued book for real science.

It is good to see new authors in the Intelligent Design movement. Dr. Broom has written a very useful book that is worth serious consideration. I found it most useful in it's critique of Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker (hence the title). Dr. Broom is particularly good at deconstructing Dawkin's appealing but fallacious analogies and examples of naturalistic evolution. I hope to see more from this author in the future.