I have been responding again to Jason Rosenhouse about his book The Failures of Mathematical Anti-Evolutionism. See my earlier posts here, here, here, here, and here. This is the concluding post in the series.

I’ll close with a story. My wife used to set up psychiatric units across the U.S. She would travel to various states, stay a few months, set up a unit, hire people, get it self-sustaining, and move on to the next place (she worked for a company based in Dallas). While she was overseeing a unit in Arkansas, it was her responsibility also to get people admitted to the unit. The highlight of her time there was an older woman who would sit on the porch of her house and fire her shotgun at local police. It seems she wasn’t aiming to hurt them, but eventually it got to be a bit much.

So my wife was tasked with bringing her before a judge to determine whether she was a danger to herself and others, with the intention then of having her committed to my wife’s psych unit. For some time during the proceeding, this woman seemed lucid, to the point that the judge was looking at my wife as if to say “Why did you bring her here in the first place?” She was articulate. She described her house, her living arrangements, and the relationship between her and her dog “Baby.” Much as with Darwinism, it all seemed so reasonable, so plausible, so sane.

And then the woman let loose with a whopper. She described how Baby took such good care of her, how Baby would go to the fridge, how Baby would prepare a sandwich for her, how Baby would even cut off the crust from the bread just the way she liked it. At that point my wife, with relief, saw the judge look up, nod, and sign the commitment papers. 

As you read Rosenhouse’s reply, your reaction ought to be that of the judge. If it isn’t, you should consider (but of course won’t) whether Darwinism has addled your brain.

Editor’s note: This review is cross-posted with permission of the author from BillDembski.com.