I can't find it, but one of my correspondents cited Michael Denton as a scientific authority for their anti-evolution, special creationist stance. I got Denton's anti-evolution book, "Evolution: A theory in crisis" to read it, so that I can have an informed opinion.
Now I find out that Michael Denton doesn't even stand by the book any more himself (it was written in 1985).
This book review of Denton's follow-up book "Nature's Destiny": From the impossibility of evolution to the inevitability of evolution: Anti-Evolutionist Michael Denton turns into an 'Evolutionist', makes it abundantly clear that Denton now sees evolution as the natural mechanism by which different life forms develop.
I can't remember who quoted Denton to me, but whoever it was: wtf? I go to check out your guy to see what his chops are, and he's not even in to himself any more. Your guy is advocating the same approach that I am!
I think that the two points that I made in the previous post are what changed his mind: understanding that "chance" doesn't intrinsically mean "atheism"; and approaching the evidence with an open mind (always dangerous if you want to remain a fanatic).
You don't know what you are
You don't know what you are talking about. Michael Denton, like Michael Behe, never promoted "special creation", they have both always supported *directed* evolution, that is they both believe that evolution is guided and the product of purpose, as opposed to neo-darwinism which teaches that evolution is purely the result of *random* mutations + natural selection. Even the link you give criticizes Denton for his belief in *directed* evolution. Here is a quote from Denton's book Nature's Destiny:
"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact."(p. 389)
This is the review of his book Nature's Destiny from Publishers Weekly:
"New England biologist Denton continues the assault on Darwinian science, especially the theories of evolution and natural selection, that he began in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Here, Denton takes a page out of the work of 19th-century natural theologians like William Paley and 19th-century anti-Darwinian scientists like Robert Chambers to contend that, far from being random and without direction, the laws of nature operate by design. Moreover, says Denton, the design of the laws of the universe inevitably lead to one conclusion: "The entire process of biological evolution from the origin of life to the emergence of man was somehow directed from the beginning." Denton marshals a dizzying array of scientific evidence to bolster his conclusions. First, he examines the evidence from physics and chemistry for the inevitability that the development of a universe like ours would have the evolution of life as its goal. He discusses gravity, the nuclear energy levels of certain atoms, water, light, carbon, uranium and more as elements whose existence is perfectly orchestrated to usher human life onto the universe's stage. Denton then discusses evolutionary biology, arguing that the biocentric nature of the universe undermines the Darwinian principles of contingent natural selection. Denton's arguments are weakened by their circular nature (he assumes design in nature and proceeds to make pieces fit his argument whether they do so easily or not), but his prose is engaging and his insights are accessible to readers who lack a deep scientific background. In the growing debate over Darwin's theories, Denton's voice remains one of the most notable and compelling."
Shiva prabhu, In Evolution:
Shiva prabhu,
In Evolution: ATIC Denton argues for invariant typology - the idea that there is variation within species, but no "macro-evolution". If I read your comment correctly you argued for this position in a previous comment.
In his next book he abandons this position to argue for something more like the theistic evolution that I proposed - macro-evolution without an atheist metaphysic.
Aside from his changing positions, the weakness of his argument there is the anthropocentricity of his teleology - which arises from his identification with his body.
Anthropocentricity is an Achilles heel in the modern scientific environment.
The Vedic equivalent of his argument does not suffer from this weakness. I'll write about it in more length later.