His choice of targets for criticism and for praise have a lot more to do with his particular agenda than the defects or merits of those whom he critiques.
This is awesome. It’s hard to imagine a more compelling endorsement for a book.
There are innumerable descriptions and definitions of theistic evolution. How things are phrased matters a lot.
Is it true, as one critics says, that “cancer regularly innovates with proteins of novel function”?
A participant did not like that I called his origins model “idiosyncratic,” or that I characterized the reaction to it as “cautious.” Oh well.