I ran into this same problem while trying to read a broad survey of Institutionalist economics papers--the amount of time I can spend reading is limited, and sometimes there's no way to tell if a heterodox work is worth the trouble. Sadly, my default is "no."

He seems a fairly dedicated god-botherer / evangelist, with a few TV programmes, so maybe a semi-celebrity (?)

(disclaimer: I was 11 when I left the Netherlands for New Zealand)

As for the parent comment, the evolution=degeneration theory does not pass my common sense filter: are we that much more degenerate than our 5-million-years-ago ancestors? Seems more likely to be a reactive criticism against Darwin, but (not having read the book, only the intro) provided it makes VALID points that need to be considered, it will (hopefully) aid our understanding as to how we got here, and where we may end up going...

Just look at all the things Darwin "didn't want to know", and the progress which science made since Darwin.

IMO, Darwin is simply not to consider a good scientist, and in Darwins book there are some disgusting racist parts, and discriminating parts against the intelligence of women.

The reason why scientists accept evolution is not because Darwin was a good scientist or a nice person (although, for the record, general consensus is that he was) but because the evidence for is vastly better than the evidence against. Even if it turned out that Darwin was crazy as a loon, that his belief in evolution came from voices in his head, and that he liked to eat babies for breakfast, it wouldn't change that.

This is simply not true.

There are many scientific books against the evolution theory. I know that I'm not saying something popular when I claim that to me the evolution theory is simply silly. But I don't care to be popular -- instead I care to accept the most reasonable opinion.

Now, if the evolution theory is silly, what is not? Intelligent desing? If you think that, I'm out, except for a url:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pscindx.htm

The section labeled "Anti-Evolutionism" may be of particular interest, here.

I said 'silly' because basically it says: "less intelligent beings evolved into more intelligent beings". Now, this is simply impossible. If you want something less intelligent become more intelligent, you need someone from outside to bring the new intelligence.

It's very interesting that Darwin himself admitted that he faked some of his experiments, just to "make the whole theory work".

So, it's basically very simple: nobody can exclude a perfect Intelligence on the beginning of everything. Call it God, call it how you like, but denying it is not very intelligent...

About "silly", I never understood evolution as a path from less intelligent to more intelligent. I always thought it was the survival of the fittest — quite a different concept. For example, I've heard about a animal which at some point in its life just eats its brain, because it's isn't needed anymore (the animal somewhat become a plant). Now, talking about intelligence as such isn't really possible, since "intelligence" is hardly a well defined term, let alone a measurable quantity. Complexity, on the other hand is more measurable. Why do life became more and more complex over time, I do not know. however, I do know that some complexities gave an edge to the concerned species. One of them is the eye.

About Darwin's fake experiments, it already has been said: it doesn't matter. His theory was amended, we have more data, and more peer reviews. Without a relatively high level of plausibility, the evolution theory would have been rejected by now. Even if it means proving the Church wrong. Now, I have not read how the book you linked addresses this catch.

About the perfect intelligence on the beginning of everything, it doesn't matter. It is just beyond science. That this begining was the Big Bang just fits the current observations best. Pretending that life on Earth allways was as complex as it is now is too convoluted right now to be considered a valid theory.

As a final note, I must add that I am not as specialist. So my only choice is to take the generaly accepted set of theories for granted. I have no right to contradict them without a great deal of knowlege in their respective domains. If the author you cited is right, that is sadly not my job to listen to him. That is the job of specialists.

I'm serious--the theory that we are talking about has absolutely nothing to say about your "first Intelligence".

I've read the original Darwin and there is many a mention of the "creator's breath" (that put everything into action) and things of this nature.