Rana's anti-evolution arguments are well worn, but his portrait of cells' inner workings conveys the beauty of creation.Review by Craig Story
I am assuming that Mr. Story is coming from a theistic evolution point of view (although that isn't stated in the piece). Given the fact that he apparently teaches at Gordon College, which I believe to be a Christian institution, I'm assuming he is not an atheist.
If that's the case, I'm wondering why he doesn't make his own position more clear. Where is he coming from? And why does he object to design arguments? Or are there some forms of design arguments he is more open to than others? These are probative questions that would have made his review more valuable.
That being said, I have to wonder based on some of his comments whether Mr. Story actually read the book. Some of his statements don't demonstrate a very sophisticated understanding of Dr. Rana's actual arguments. I hate to say that because it could come across as sounding kind of arrogant. Who am I, the theologian, to criticize the scientist? But I think I understand Fuz's arguments well enough to know when someone is dealing fairly with his work. I don't know. Maybe I'm way off. Just a thought.