Books of interest Intelligent Design

Michael Denton: The Miracle of Man

Spread the love


(This article by Terry Scambray originally appeared in the December 2022 edition of New Oxford Review.)  

The 20th century’s most prominent atheist, Bertrand Russell once said that when he dies if confronted by God and asked why he remained an atheist, he would simply say, “Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence.”

Michael Denton is one of several 20th century scientists who have come forward with evidence that the cosmos by all scientific accounts looks to be a profoundly crafted place for life and specifically for human life to exist and then to thrive and flourish. 

 Even an agnostic like Freeman Dyson, the Anglo-American physicist, has said, “The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”  Voltaire famously wrote: if God did not exist, he would have to be invented; though he less famously followed that by writing, God does exist because of the order in the natural world.  America’s Voltaire, H.L Mencken, wrote, “I can recall no concrete atheist who did not appear to me to be a donkey. For if there is anything plain about the universe, it is that it is governed by law, and law is always a manifestation of Will.”  

Other cosmologists like Brandon Carter, Fred Hoyle, and Guillermo Gonzalez have made similar claims for what has become known as the anthropic principle meaning that this world offers an irresistible invitation for life to come in and stay awhile.

Certainly these findings do not “prove God,” but when one considers the sublime fine tuning of the universe that Denton describes, the conclusion of a Designer is hard to resist.  Indeed, as Denton has recently said, “This just right, Goldilocks universe rings up the curtain on the great scriptural drama of Redemption which requires man’s centrality in some sense and that’s what fitness is bringing back.” 

So science and theology, science and Christianity are inextricably connected as they were when science was invented in the medieval universities and, by contrast, they are not the entrenched enemies as they have been portrayed for the last 200 years.  Physicist Paul Davies goes further when he says, “Science offers a surer path to God than religion.”


Denton’s first book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, is regarded as the opening salvo of the intelligent design movement, a view which attempts to demonstrate that just as man made things are designed by a mind for a purpose, so the same applies to the even more wonderous features of nature.  

In addition to his medical degree and his doctorate in genetics, Denton knows history and philosophy.  All of this makes him aware that by pointing out the shortcomings of Darwin, he sends an entire worldview into a tailspin.   As Denton puts it, Darwin thought that “the eerie purposefulness of living systems resulted from a blind process – natural selection; that is, time and chance.  God’s will was replaced by the capriciousness of a roulette wheel.  The break with the past was complete.” 

Others had certainly deconstructed Darwin almost immediately after his 1859 publication of The Origin of the Species.  However, Denton’s critique relied mainly on the science of the last 50 years and especially the latest findings in molecular biology to reestablish teleology as the only possible explanation for the complexity of life and the cosmos.

The findings of molecular biology show that the inner workings of the cell alone are too complex, far too interdependent to have been built in a piece-by-piece manner without a purpose, or to use Aristotle’s words, without a “final cause.”

Denton wrote that the claim that time and chance are responsible for such sublime complexity “is one of the most daring claims in all of science.  But it is also one of the least substantiated.  No one has ever produced any proof that the designs in nature are within the reach of chance.”    


 Denton, in his 1998 book, Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe, proceeded to dive deeper into the complexity of life by showing that it exists on a razor’s edge of finely calibrated variables.  As he wrote, “There is insufficient evidence to argue that the laws of nature are uniquely fit for every detail of human biology.  However, I believe the current evidence points strongly in this direction and that future scientific advances will confirm the absolute centrality of mankind in the cosmic scheme.”

 The current evidence that Denton’s book relies on is encyclopedic, including the nature of many variables including carbon, water, fire, sunlight and even the cosmos itself.  His explanations of how all these features are synchronized is finely grained and demanding, but a few examples may suffice to suggest the depth of his investigation.

Carbon is the only element that bonds easily with other elements in long chains without a great loss of energy.  Besides making life possible when it bonds with hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, which make amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, it also makes life bearable when it combines with other elements to make natural gas, gasoline, lubricating oils, gases, waxes, plastics, anesthetics, solvents, Freon, ethanol, coffee, tea and many other items.

As it happened, Hoyle, early on as an atheist, figured that there was a relatively easy pathway to form carbon.   What he found, though, was that combining other elements like helium, hydrogen and beryllium could not form carbon.  Additionally the physical and chemical dynamics within stars play a role in making carbon.   That is, a star, acting as a furnace, must get sufficiently hot in order to blend various elements but not so hot that the star would burn up.  Hoyle concluded that such finely calibrated events cannot be explained by chance, making this one example of many which drove him to say that “a superintellect has monkeyed with physics.”

Another indispensable feature of life that is difficult to explain within a purely materialistic framework is water; for it is the ideal substance for filling the body’s billions of capillaries while also serving as a universal solvent which produces the hygienic conditions conducive to health.

In explaining water’s versatility, Denton writes that when water freezes into ice “it has a viscosity of 1016  times that of water.  The rocks which make up the crust of the earth have viscosities ranging between 1025 to 1028 times that of water.  So if the viscosity of ice had been several times lower than it is, then glacial activity would have been much less effective in grinding down the mountains” to form rich valleys and to expose the vital minerals which make modern industrial society possible.  (1016 means 1 with 16 zeros after it which is a quadrillion; and so on for the others mentioned.)

 Fire literally ignited the industrial revolution and the earth’s boundless forests offered the fuel to make fire while the upright, bipedal features of humans and the manipulative abilities of human hands perfectly fit the demands of fire making.   From burning wood, charcoal was made which burns at the high temperatures necessary to blend raw metals and then to shape them into the materials and machines without which civilization could not exist.

Sunlight is another essential for life because it manufactures energy by the still unexplained process of photosynthesis which grows plants which produce food for humans and animals. 

Some ask how the almost immeasurable size of the universe fits into what might appear to be this rather tidy teleological view.   As it turns out, however, even the most distant galaxies influence the inertia of earthly bodies!   As Denton writes, “The existence of beings of our size and mass with the ability to stand, to move, and to light a fire is only possible because of the influence of the most distant galaxies, whose collective mass determines the precise strength of the inertial forces on earth.”

Denton sees this feature of the universe “as a distant echo of the medieval doctrine of man which held that the dimensions of the human body reflect in some profound sense the dimensions of the macrocosm.” 

In his most recent work, Denton continues his quest to demonstrate the perfect fit between man and the cosmos.  Thus, beginning in 2016 he published a series of four short books on each of the properties of fire, water, light and the cell.  In each of these books, ranging in length from 68 to 168 pages, he delves into even greater detail the elegant features of life.   While specialists will better appreciate the finely grained details from chemistry, physics, optics and so on that Denton discusses, the wizardry of nature described in these monographs will also impress the non-specialist.

The Miracle of the Cell - Denton, Michael

 For example, in his 2020 book, The Miracle Of The Cell, he writes that a cell “consists of trillions of atoms, representing the complexity of a jumbo jet and more, packed into a space less than a millionth of the volume of a typical grain of sand.  But unlike anything else this entity can replicate itself.  Here is an infinity machine with seemingly magical powers.”

 Denton concludes his “Privileged Species Series” with The Miracle of Man: The Fine Tuning of Nature for Human Existence.  And, in this case, he admits that his claim that the cosmos is uniquely fit for man may strike many as extraordinary.  As Carl Sagan wrote, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”   But unlike the unsupported Darwinian claim that time and accident produced all of nature including man, Denton responds that, regardless of how extraordinary his claim appears, the facts speak for themselves.

And once again, Denton presents an amazing array of facts, from the cardiac muscle cells which have “trillions of tightly packed molecular arrays of contractile filaments” which generate the cardiac cycle as it pumps blood which adds a fourth of a liter of oxygen per minute as it moves one hundred trillion oxygen molecules per minute through the surface of the lungs.

The human brain, for its part, performs 1015 synaptic operations per second and may be “the most complex functional assemblage of matter possible in our universe,” according to Denton.

These are stunning ensembles in themselves, but they become even more so when one considers that they must be synchronized with features like the size of the Earth, its atmosphere, its hydrological cycle, and its soils, along with a staggering number of other variables.

Denton concludes with a Biblical like paean to man: “Our destiny was inscribed in the light of the stars and the property of atoms since the beginning.   All of nature sings the song of man.  We now know what medieval scholars only believed, that the underlying rationality of nature is indeed ‘manifest in human flesh.’”

11 Replies to “Michael Denton: The Miracle of Man

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    As to:

    Some ask how the almost immeasurable size of the universe fits into what might appear to be this rather tidy teleological view. As it turns out, however, even the most distant galaxies influence the inertia of earthly bodies! As Denton writes, “The existence of beings of our size and mass with the ability to stand, to move, and to light a fire is only possible because of the influence of the most distant galaxies, whose collective mass determines the precise strength of the inertial forces on earth.”

    Well actually, ‘relative inertial influences’ in the cosmos go a bit deeper than just what Denton pointed out in establishing that man is not nearly as insignificant in the cosmos as some, such as say the late Stephen Hawking, have erroneously presupposed.

    “The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can’t believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.,,,”
    – Stephen Hawking – 1995 TV show, Reality on the Rocks: Beyond Our Ken,

    In Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, and in direct contradiction to the Copernican principle (which holds that there is nothing special about the earth or humanity), there is no simply no experimental test that can be performed that can differentiate whether inertial influences arise for the earth being in motion in a stationary universe or from the universe being in motion around a stationary earth.

    “One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K’ [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K’ [the Earth], whereby K’ [the Earth] is treated as being at rest.”
    –Albert Einstein, quoted in Hans Thirring, “On the Effect of Distant Rotating Masses in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation”, Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 29, 1921

    “We can’t feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.,,,
    If all the objects in space were removed save one, then no one could say whether that one remaining object was at rest or hurtling through the void at 100,000 miles per second”
    Historian Lincoln Barnett – “The Universe and Dr. Einstein” – pg 73 (contains a foreword by Albert Einstein)

    As far as Einstein’s general relativity is concerned, Albert Einstein, stated, The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems].”

    “Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
    – Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.);

    And as George Ellis, (a former close colleague of Hawking), stated, “I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds…”

    “People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
    – George Ellis – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55

    And as Fred Hoyle, who discovered stellar nucleosynthesis, himself stated, “Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”

    “The relation of the two pictures [geocentrism and geokineticism] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view…. Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
    – Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.

    Shoot even Stephen Hawking himself stated that ‘our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.,,, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.’

    “So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.
    Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.”
    – Stephen Hawking – The Grand Design – pages 39 – 2010

    In fact, in the 4 dimensional spacetime of Einstein’s General Relativity, we find that each 3-Dimensional point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe,,,

    Where is the centre of the universe?:
    Excerpt: There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a “Big Bang” about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell.

    ,,, and since any 3-Dimensional point can be considered central in the expanding 4-Dimensional space time of General Relativity, then, as the following articles make clear, it is now left completely open to whomever is making a model of the universe to decide for themselves what is to be considered central in the universe,,,

    How Einstein Revealed the Universe’s Strange “Nonlocality” – George Musser | Oct 20, 2015
    Excerpt: Under most circumstances, we can ignore this nonlocality. You can designate some available chunk of matter as a reference point and use it to anchor a coordinate grid. You can, to the chagrin of Santa Barbarans, take Los Angeles as the center of the universe and define every other place with respect to it. In this framework, you can go about your business in blissful ignorance of space’s fundamental inability to demarcate locations.,,
    In short, Einstein’s theory is nonlocal in a more subtle and insidious way than Newton’s theory of gravity was. Newtonian gravity acted at a distance, but at least it operated within a framework of absolute space. Einsteinian gravity has no such element of wizardry; its effects ripple through the universe at the speed of light. Yet it demolishes the framework, violating locality in what was, for Einstein, its most basic sense: the stipulation that all things have a location. General relativity confounds our intuitive picture of space as a kind of container in which material objects reside and forces us to search for an entirely new conception of place.

    How Einstein Lost His Bearings, and With Them, General Relativity – March 2018
    Excerpt: Einstein’s field equations — the equations of general relativity — describe how the shape of space-time evolves in response to the presence of matter and energy. To describe that evolution, you need to impose on space-time a coordinate system — like lines of latitude and longitude — that tells you which points are where.
    The most important thing to recognize about coordinate systems is that they’re human contrivances. Maybe in one coordinate system we label a point (0, 0, 0), and in another we label that same point (1, 1, 1). The physical properties haven’t changed — we’ve just tagged the point differently. “Those labels are something about us, not something about the world,” said James Weatherall, a philosopher of science at the University of California, Irvine.,,,
    The Einstein field equations we have today are generally covariant. They express the same physical truths about the universe — how space-time curves in the presence of energy and matter — regardless of what coordinates you use to label things.,,,
    as Einstein discovered,,, the universe doesn’t admit any one privileged choice of coordinates.

    In fact, again according to the four-dimensional space-time of General Relativity, even individual people are allowed to be considered central in the universe,,,

    You Technically Are the Center of the Universe – May 2016
    Excerpt: (due to the 1 in 10^120 finely tuned expansion of the 4-D space-time of General Relativity) no matter where you stand, it will appear that everything in the universe is expanding around you. So the center of the universe is technically — everywhere.
    The moment you pick a frame of reference, that point becomes the center of the universe.
    Here’s another way to think about it: The sphere of space we can see around us is the visible universe. We’re looking at the light from stars that’s traveled millions or billions of years to reach us. When we reach the 13.8 billion-light-year point, we’re seeing the universe just moments after the Big Bang happened.
    But someone standing on another planet, a few light-years to the right, would see a different sphere of the universe. It’s sort of like lighting a match in the middle of a dark room: Your observable universe is the sphere of the room that the light illuminates.
    But someone standing in a different spot in the room will be able to see a different sphere. So technically, we are all standing at the center of our own observable universes.

    And to support the claim that even individual people can be considered central in the four-dimensional space-time of General Relativity, I note that when Einstein first formulated both Special and General relativity, he gave a ‘hypothetical’ observer a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements in the universe.

    Introduction to special relativity
    Excerpt: Einstein’s approach was based on thought experiments, calculations, and the principle of relativity, which is the notion that all physical laws should appear the same (that is, take the same basic form) to all inertial observers.,,,
    Each observer has a distinct “frame of reference” in which velocities are measured,,,,
    per wikipedia

    “At that moment I got the happiest thought of my life in the following form: In an example worth considering, the gravitational field has a relative existence only in a manner similar to the electric field generated by magneto-electric induction. Because for an observer in free-fall from the roof of a house there is during the fall—at least in his immediate vicinity—no gravitational field.[36] Namely, if the observer lets go of any bodies, they remain relative to him, in a state of rest or uniform motion, independent of their special chemical or physical nature.5[37] The observer, therefore, is justified in interpreting his state as being “at rest.” The extremely strange and confirmed experience that all bodies in the same gravitational field fall with the same acceleration immediately attains, through this idea, a deep physical meaning. Because if there were just one single thing to fall in a gravitational field in a manner different from all others, the observer could recognize from it that he is in a gravitational field and that he is falling. But if such a thing does not exist—as experience has shown with high precision—then there is no objective reason for the observer to consider himself as falling in a gravitational field. To the contrary, he has every right to consider himself in a state of rest and his vicinity as free of fields as far as gravitation is concerned.”
    – Einstein

    “There is no experiment observers can perform to distinguish whether an acceleration arises because of a gravitational force or because their reference frame is accelerating.”
    — Douglas C. Giancoli, Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics, p. 155.
    This idea was introduced in Einstein’s 1907 article “Principle of Relativity and Gravitation” and later developed in 1911.[39] Support for this principle is found in the Eötvös experiment, which determines whether the ratio of inertial to gravitational mass is the same for all bodies, regardless of size or composition. To date no difference has been found to a few parts in 1011.[40] For some discussion of the subtleties of the Eötvös experiment, such as the local mass distribution around the experimental site (including a quip about the mass of Eötvös himself), see Franklin.[41]

    As an example that we are not to be considered insignificant ‘chemical scum’ as far as general relativity itself is concerned, in the following article it was noted that, “shifting your pencil from one side of your desk to the other today could change the gravitational forces on Jupiter enough to shift its position from one side of the Sun to the other a billion years from now.”

    Is the Solar System Stable? By Scott Tremaine – 2011
    Excerpt: So what are the results? Most of the calculations agree that eight billion years from now, just before the Sun swallows the inner planets and incinerates the outer ones, all of the planets will still be in orbits very similar to their present ones. In this limited sense, the solar system is stable. However, a closer look at the orbit histories reveals that the story is more nuanced. After a few tens of millions of years, calculations using slightly different parameters (e.g., different planetary masses or initial positions within the small ranges allowed by current observations) or different numerical algorithms begin to diverge at an alarming rate. More precisely, the growth of small differences changes from linear to exponential:,,,
    As an example, shifting your pencil from one side of your desk to the other today could change the gravitational forces on Jupiter enough to shift its position from one side of the Sun to the other a billion years from now. The unpredictability of the solar system over very long times is of course ironic since this was the prototypical system that inspired Laplacian determinism.

    There is simply no ‘scientific’ justification whatsoever within general relativity itself to regard the Copernican principle as being unquestionably true, and to therefore regard humanity as being merely ‘chemical scum’ as Hawking had erroneously held. As far as experimental science and general relativity are concerned, what we do here on earth can have ‘cosmic significance’. It is not just a one way street where we are just ‘helpless victims’ of cosmic influences, but it is a extremely delicately balanced two way street. A ‘delicate architecture’ for which atheistic naturalists have no ‘earthly’ clue how it could have possible come to be as it is.

    “You might also think that these disparate bodies are scattered across the solar system without rhyme or reason. But move any piece of the solar system today, or try to add anything more, and the whole construction would be thrown fatally out of kilter. So how exactly did this delicate architecture come to be?”
    – R. Webb – Unknown solar system 1: How was the solar system built? – New Scientist – 2009

    In fact, when other lines of scientific evidence are brought forth on top of this evidence from General relativity, such as what Michael Denton has brought forth, and such as evidence from quantum mechanics, CMBR anomalies, life existing at the ‘geometric mean’,, etc, etc.. then we do indeed find that the Copernican principle, (and/of the Principle of Mediocrity) has been thoroughly and impressively, overturned.

    As much as it may hurt an atheist’s feelings to know this, and as far as our best science can now tell us, we are not merely “chemical scum” as Hawking, via the Copernican Principle, tried to imply that we were.

    Hopefully atheists will soon get over the ‘sad’ fact that they are not to be considered merely ‘chemical scum’ in short order. 🙂

    Isaiah 45:18-19
    For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘seek me in vain’; I, the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.”

  2. 2
    chuckdarwin says:

    What in the world is an “Angelo American physicist?”

  3. 3
    jerry says:

    Angelo American

    What would we do without ChuckDarwin to point out a typo?

    Chuck has risen to a new high on UD. Maybe Denyse will fix it. But she is quoting someone else.

    In case Chuck doesn’t understand the concept, Dyson was born in England but became a US citizen. He is an Anglo American. Understanding this may be above your pay grade. I’m sure most everyone reading it including some of the anti ID would understand. Your comment does explain a lot of things.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    If only ChuckyD could apply the same rigor to correcting his science that he does trying to correct other people’s grammar,

    That Mitchell and Webb Look – Grammar Nazi

  5. 5
    Sir Giles says:

    Jerry: What would we do without ChuckDarwin to point out a typo?

    Chuck has risen to a new high on UD. Maybe Denyse will fix it.

    She already has. But, if I might ask, why does it matter that he is an Anglo-American? Does that give him more credibility than if he was a Franco-American, a Japanese-American, an African American, a female American, a gay American, a Druid American or a Jewish American?

  6. 6
    jerry says:

    why does it matter that he is an Anglo-American?

    It doesn’t add much except he has been influenced by living in two science cultures.

    He was born in England and moved to the US in his mid 20s but then moved back to England for a short time. Wikipedia identifies his as English-America. Whether they are different or not is probably irrelevant. As far as I know there is no African, female, gay, Druid or Jewish science culture. It would be interesting if there was.

    I am sure there are some scientists who started in France and Japan and then moved to the US. Identifying them as such would add a little about their background. So identifying this would be interesting.

    Aside: chuckdarwin wasn’t complaining that Dyson was Angelo-American. He was complaining that a typo got through.

  7. 7
    chuckdarwin says:

    just keepin’ the editors honest. LOL
    Actually, it just hit me as funny, an “Angelo-American.” Could have been Italian. Besides, Jerry, I knew it’d get you all spun up……….

  8. 8
    Querius says:

    I’m also a hyphenated-American, but on reflection, I supposed everyone is a hyphenated something.

    And when one hyphen becomes insufficient, I’m sure that two or more hyphens will become absolutely essential to differentiate the Currently Recognized Class (CRC) distinctions between a . . .

    * Straight-female-she-her-northern-Armenian-college-educated-woke-oppressed-trans-racial-Spanish-Marxist

    and an obviously redundant . . .

    * white-male-oppressor (WMO)


  9. 9
    asauber says:

    I finished reading The Miracle of Man when I was in Mexico in October. The information in it is really, the use the word, extraordinary.

    CD and SG should be able to read it without any hesitation, you know, because they have no prejudices against it, and because it presents scientific information and draws a reasonable conclusion.


  10. 10
    chuckdarwin says:

    Next time I go to Mexico I’ll read it…..

  11. 11
    asauber says:


    You don’t have to go to Mexico to read it!

    It’s good no matter where you read it!


Leave a Reply