I began by saying that, in some respects, this book is better than run-of-the-mill attacks on evolutionary theory. One reason for saying this is that it relies on reasonably sophisticated views about the nature of scientific theory. (Much of Part 1--the articles by Moreland, Meyer and Dembski--is well-argued and well-thought-out.) Another reason for saying this is that, when conclusions are drawn from scientific data, those conclusions are often fairly careful. (For example, Bradley and Thaxton are careful to note that--in effect--their arguments at best support 'deistic science'.) Yet another reason is that in some places--particularly in the article by Wise--it is acknowledged that evolutionary theory is a very successful scientific theory.

However, there are respects in which this book is very much like familiar anti-evolutionary literature.

...

One feature of the book which I have mentioned at various points is that it does not form a unified and coherent whole: the argument in one part very often pulls against the argument in another part. This feature is, I think, related to a more fundamental drawback of the book, which is, once again, a common feature of the anti-evolution literature--viz. that it nowhere makes any attempt to give a detailed statement of the theory which is supposed to be in competition with evolutionary theory. Although many of the authors make claims about the ability of 'theistic science' to explain this or that, we are never given any clear statement of this wonderful theory--and so we have no way of even beginning to assess these claims. Even if this could be in part justified by the claim that 'theistic science' is in its infancy--a claim which is in any case in tension with the claim that 'methodological naturalism' is a recent invention which was used to overthrow well-established and long-standing 'theistic science'--it's hard to see how claims about what 'theistic science' can explain can be justified unless someone, somewhere, has a well-worked-out theory of this kind.