As a high school teacher and a college professor, I'm grateful for the work of Dembski and McDowell as they have simplified Intelligent Design in a way that even my teen-age students will be able to understand. Publications like this are important if we want our children to `own their own faith' before they head into the skeptical college years.

I do find it fascinating how this book has only been out a month (at the time of my writing) and already the Evolutionists have so loudly protested this book. One Top 50 reviewer even cries a river, saying he didn't get a "free copy" from the publisher, and then he writes a review anyway without reading it--for Pete's Sake, is a book's "review" section a place to rant on one's personal ideology or a place to review books? Amazon ought to ban such worthless drivel that has nothing to do with the reviewing of the book at hand, as one would think that reviewing a book would require a person to actually read it. Perhaps that's how he and the other Top 50 reviewers can have thousands of reviews and add one or two more each day. Are you serious? As for me, I only review what I have actually read--with the exception of resource works--and I suggest all other serious reviewers to do the same thing. Otherwise, why should I take your review seriously?

And talk about presuppositions! Let's just say that the opponents of ID wouldn't care so much if ID did not threaten their Ivory Tower existences. I remember the old days when these liberal naturalists were able to comfortably sit up in their offices and pontificate for a few hours each week in an assembly hall, with the masses saying very little in academic opposition. But now that the Behes, Dembskis, and others (with papers even) have academincally shown that the Evolutionary Emperor is wearing purple polka-dotted shorts and a tank top, these Ivory Tower-types can't get enough crying "foul." In fact, they seem to be saying, "How dare anybody come up with ideas different than our 'science!'" Yet as Dembski and McDowell point out, there are just too many scientific holes in macro Evolutionary theory; without the goods, Evolution becomes a type of faith--perhaps even moreso--that is not much different in nature to those who propose that there must be a God who put this universe together, as even some of the harshest critics of ID have admitted it "looks like it was designed." (Occam's Razor, anyone?)

There were many good parts of this book, including this quote on page 149 regarding the bacterial flagellum: "Current evolutionary theory has been engaged in a fruitless search for plausible indirect Darwinian pathways to explain irreducible complexity. Repeated attempts have been made to give a naturalistic account of the flagellum, yet no detailed, testable models have been produced. Aren't we therefore justified in wondering if such pathways even exist? Sometimes absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Remember Pasteur and spontaneous generation? We should always be on guard when the only reason for believing something is to shore up an existing theory."

If ID is just a silly notion, then this movement will die its own natural death (sounds almost "Evolutionary" to me!) and we'll hear no more about it, given time. But there is too much at stake! If the word gets out that the Emperor is not all he is cracked up to be, my oh my, the Ivory towers start shaking. The owners of these towers have had a monopoly on the youth, as Evolution is the standard in high school and college science classes. And if a professor dares teach anything else, we'll ban you and prevent you (or take away) your tenure. I think Ben Stein showed this attitude to be the norm in the hilarious documentary Expelled that came out this year.

Indeed, I find the monopolist attitude of the evolutionists to be disingenous in the name of education. As a high school and college educator myself, I believe it is important for my students to see all sides, even if I have a bent. Obviously we all have presuppositions, but to take away the rights of educators to show contrary evidence is propaganda, not education. Again, let the best ideas (i.e. "the Truth")win. Let's deal with the ideas and stay away from the ad hominem attacks (and other logical fallacies) that I see happen far too frequently in this debate.

Again, I highly recommend this book for the layperson who wants to better understand the ID movement and desires to be exposed to the wealth of information showing that there truly must be an Intelligent Designer of the universe. As this book points out, the universe is not just a big cosmic accident.