Replies

I have to read the book, but if it does not go beyond the usual Scientific American article on the subject, I suspect that the Darwinists will overlook ththat thery have their own god of the gaps." I don't see how the biologists can ever reduce everything to physics --and that is really what they are claiming--until relativity and quantum theory are reconciled. Since science is far from the holy grail of the "theory of Everything." any thing less that, especially one which tries to incorporate a philosophy, can be no more than apologetics. It tells me a lot about the writer of this article that he believes that the argument from design is "the" most compelling argument for God. But that would be the argument for continguency, One has to be like Bertrand Russel and just flat-out deny it : an act of faith that he made in fealty to his dead father's memory rather than from what he learned in his grandfather's library or from his own studies.