As to the definition, I think many of them are defining it as "specified complexity", if that helps
That's an invented term (Dembski, I think) that still lacks a formal definition.
I didn't attack Sanford on any of the items you're defending. I mentioned the UFO just to be sure we were talking about the same book--it's the most striking feature of the book.
I didn't mention anything about peer review. I wondered why this book wasn't written as a scientific work (in the same way that peer-reviewed works are). The ideas would be taken more seriously and it would theoretically have more data to back up the claims.
I brought up the retirement and financial stuff to point out that he doesn't have a reason not to produce an academic-quality book, but didn't. That's his choice, but I suspect (again, I haven't even read the book) his target audience is not scientists, but laymen.
He does not find evolution false because he is a Christian. He is a Christian because he found evolution false.
Not having read the book, I was under the impression (reports from both sides of the debate) that his religious conversion was the result of a personal event (divorce), and that conversion caused him to look critically at his beliefs about evolution. The religous sections of the book detract even more from the scientific aspect. It doesn't take anything away from the ideas presented, but it explains why it's not subjected to much scientific criticism.
Negative reviews may not surprise you, but you can't just dismiss them with a wave of the hand.
No need to defend him
As to the definition, I think many of them are defining it as "specified complexity", if that helps
That's an invented term (Dembski, I think) that still lacks a formal definition.
I didn't attack Sanford on any of the items you're defending. I mentioned the UFO just to be sure we were talking about the same book--it's the most striking feature of the book.
I didn't mention anything about peer review. I wondered why this book wasn't written as a scientific work (in the same way that peer-reviewed works are). The ideas would be taken more seriously and it would theoretically have more data to back up the claims.
I brought up the retirement and financial stuff to point out that he doesn't have a reason not to produce an academic-quality book, but didn't. That's his choice, but I suspect (again, I haven't even read the book) his target audience is not scientists, but laymen.
He does not find evolution false because he is a Christian. He is a Christian because he found evolution false.
Not having read the book, I was under the impression (reports from both sides of the debate) that his religious conversion was the result of a personal event (divorce), and that conversion caused him to look critically at his beliefs about evolution. The religous sections of the book detract even more from the scientific aspect. It doesn't take anything away from the ideas presented, but it explains why it's not subjected to much scientific criticism.
Negative reviews may not surprise you, but you can't just dismiss them with a wave of the hand.