I see you haven't read him, since you are 100% wrong as the book is a critical survey of the anti-creationists in the origins debate. Manifestly you aren't conversant with his treatise, let alone scientifically open-minded.
and his big falsifiable test for ID is to search for "Kilroy was here" encoded in some musty corner of the genome.
Read the book. Then you will stop mindlessly disparaging that which you should be studying...
Let's examine a longer extract from your cite:
Half the book dismantles evolutionary illusions, such as:
* The carnival shell game maneuvering behind natural selection and the anthropic principle.
* The inability of evolutionary geneticists to make their models consistent with their claims and the data.
* The flexibility and untestability of evolutionary theory, it has no coherent structure. Many evolutionists are quoted to demonstrate the contradictions within evolutionary theory.
* The philosophical double-standards held by evolutionists, one standard for creation, and a lesser one for evolution.
* The misuse of terminology and classification methods to create evolutionary illusions.
* The fossil record systematically refutes the predictions of Darwinism. This is documented by quoting evolutionists themselves.
* Punctuationists (such as Stephen Gould) responded to their setbacks by constructing a theory that is compatible with a complete absence of evidence for evolution. Few students know that punctuated equilibria theory is specially constructed to destroy the appearance of lineages and identifiable ancestors.
The analysis of evolutionary theory receives praise from creationists and evolutionists alike.
The other half of the book is more controversial. The book doesn't just take shots at evolution, it actively proposes a scientifically testable creation theory to take its place. The new theory overturns Darwin's and Gould's arguments about "imperfect" designs, and most notably, the evolutionist's central argument — the nested pattern of life. The full range of biological issues are discussed, from vestigial organs, to embryology, to biomolecules, to biogeography, and more.
The central claims of the theory are simple and plausible: Life was reasonably designed for survival, and to convey a message that tells where life came from. The message can be described in two parts:
1. Life was designed to look like the product of a single designer.
2. Life was designed to resist all other explanations.
In other words, evolutionary theory helped shape the pattern of life — with a reverse impact. Life was intricately designed to resist all evolutionary explanations, not just Darwin's or Lamarck's.
As anyone who takes the trouble to look can see, I have accurately characterized the book, if the publishers have.
And that's regardless of my credentials in mathematics.
What is "message theory" anyway? And what does a phud in "communications theory" mean that you know? Transmission entropy a' la Shannon? How to find the ring line in a phone cable? Chomsky? Kauffman? Alfred Adler?
Wrong. Everybody can see you didn't. You're being intellectually dishonest.
And as for your confusion as to message theory, it appears you are simply ignorant.