And a bigger thanks to you for that helpful feedback. I'm in the process if setting up a Facebook group for discussion of the book. If you are interested, you might want to join, if for no other reason than to look in on the eventual discussions.

Thanks, Mike, for posting a link to the review.

In response, let me say - Bwuh? Sorry, that's not me. If you think it's a very fine review and think that's a reason to consider it my doing - well, thank you for the compliment.

Mea culpa, nullasalus! Here was my tortuous train of thought: 1) "nulla salus" is a reference to Unam Sanctam (you probly hafta be Catholic to get that…though I'm not). 2) Referring to Unam Sanctam is probly a pre-Vatican II gesture (but not necessarily so…). 3) You seem pretty knowledgeable about this ID/evolution issue, and there probly aren't that many Unam Sanctam-type Catholics with your level of expertise about this.

Continuing…4) the reviewer who goes by St. Edmund Campion also seems to be a pre-Vatican II Catholic, since he lifts up the Tridentine Mass on his web site; and 5) St. Edmund Campion also seems pretty knowledgeable about the ID/evolution issue, as demonstrated by the thoughtful review of The Design Matrix and the fact that he refers to himself as a student of microbiology on his web site.

Given so much overlap, I inferred that the two of you were identical. But evidently the universe of those with interest and proficiency in ID/evolution is larger than I imagined!

Are there any more comments on the very fine review given by St. Edmund Campion (whom I suspect of being our very own nullasalus)?

Greetings, don't think I've met you before!

In response, let me say - Bwuh? Sorry, that's not me. If you think it's a very fine review and think that's a reason to consider it my doing - well, thank you for the compliment.

Didn't expect to hear that association.

Are there any more comments on the very fine review given by St. Edmund Campion (whom I suspect of being our very own nullasalus)?

However, I will go further. I choose to be anonymous because I don't feel comfortable exposing myself and my business to unnecessary risk because of my frank and open comments on the internet.

Yes, that's the dynamic that's of most interest to me…the notion that there is some sort of implicit "orthodoxy" in place, and there are consequences for coloring outside those lines.

Anonymity is the norm for the internet. It comes with an upside (which you lay out) and a downside (which we could all expound on). Over the years, both sides have periodically attacked and psychologized me for remaining anonymous. And it is usually the case that those who attack/psychologize me are themselves anonymous!

However, when I decided to remain anonymous when writing a book, I was stepping outside the norm. Anonymous authors can leave a bad taste for two reasons. First, they can claim some type of authority that they do not have. Second, they can use their anonymity to throw bombs at real world people and their work.

Those who've read the DM should realize that I have ethically factored for these by constraining myself further. I inform my readers that they should not treat me as an authority (an echo of the disclaimer on my personal web page). And the book does not seek to target and debunk anyone's work, but instead attempts to set a positive outlook.

Still, I would like to see mainstream reviewers devote some attention to the dynamics which yield these advantages (and possibly others as well). I see it as an issue which is orthogonal to the merits of your arguments themselves…but at the same time, an issue which will get no attention unless the content of the book is deemed to have merit on its own.

While I am biased on the subject (being an anonymous entity myself), I agree with your stated observations.

However, I will go further. I choose to be anonymous because I don't feel comfortable exposing myself and my business to unnecessary risk because of my frank and open comments on the internet.

Guess what?

That gives me the freedom to be very frank and very open in my comments.

While I wouldn't be surprised if this is viewed as a bad thing by some, I argue the reverse. Of what value is lying to an anonymous entity? It's not like someone is going to take our word on anything.

Mike, I offer that the reason you and I are the habit of providing links to scientific papers can be directly linked to our anonymity.

Human nature, being what it is, tends to gravitate towards establishing a social hierarchy. People look for leaders to trust and like-minded followers to give them a feeling of belonging.

Anonymous entities cause conflict with that.

Anonymous entities force people to constantly evaluate and reevaluate comments and suggestions instead of simply relying on trust.

Well here is my frank and open comment on that"¦

People need to start THINKING FOR THEMSELVES!