As I have noted, I am in the highly unusual position of offering a book about design and evolution while using a pseudonym. As such, some of you may be reluctant to obtain The Design Matrix, even though William Dembski has written, “Mike Gene is one of the most insightful individuals in the ID/evolution debate.” So I offer you the perspective from the other side of the aisle. I have interacted with hundreds of ID skeptics on the Internet over the years, many of them scientists. Here are some of their observations that were made on the Internet:

You all know that I’ve had a number of run-ins with Mike Gene, and I am generally on the ‘other side’. But I have always respected Mike precisely because he is actually knowledgeable about science and will always deal in an honest way with science issues according to his knowledge and training.

The only way to test ID concepts is to tightly define specific ID hypotheses, generate predictions based on these hypotheses, and then test these predictions experimentally. As far as I can tell, there are only a very tiny minority of IDists who are prepared to head in this general direction, of whom Mike Gene is probably the best example.

And, while I can certainly find it in me to accuse Mike Gene of all sorts of things, not being an independent thinker is not one of them.

I think you have an excellent perspective on the subject, and are to be commended. You acknowledge that it is possible that these phenomena could be explained without appeal to design or the supernatural, and that “I don’t know” is a valid answer. What more could one ask of a scientist?

Of all the ID proponents I have reasearched you are, by far, the most impressive I have run across. I am impressed because you state your assumption/proposals clearly and honestly.