I don’t think the study can claim all the things it does based on the evidence they have.
If the past is any guide, where the critics are substantive rather than snarky or patronizing, we’re in for a good debate.
I saw that biologist Nathan Lents says that he has been asked to review Mike Behe’s new book.
Think of a situation where you have to crack the code on a bank vault, with many dials in the code, say 150, each specifying 1 out of 10 digits.
The interaction with Lents is of interest because it provides an opportunity to look again, in some detail, at a fascinating illustration of design in action.