> But it does strongly suggest that he is starting with a conclusion and then working backward, which is the antithesis of proper scientific research. His is n

> But it does strongly suggest that he is starting with a conclusion and then working backward, which is the antithesis of proper scientific research. His is not scientific research, but the book IMHO is a surprisingly effective and professional weaving of philosophy, history of philosophy, popular science, and history of science toward consideration of Natural Theology. Point 1: Shannon applies. Point 2: s/supporting a hypothesis/required to support an interpretation/ He acknowledges IIRC that we do not know ranges for potential tunings of physical constants, if that description applies. Has his reference to unexplained low entropy in the Universe been eviscerated? I can't assess his arguments about sparse solutions in protein/fold design space; if you cite a rebuttal of course I'm interested.