What was really stupefying about all Strobel's books was how blatantly he ignores evidence and does not seek out interviews of those skeptical of the points he wishes to establish. That was what immediately struck me when I read his work, especially since it was advertised as an unbiased journalist's search for the truth.

I think, with all due respect to my journalist friends, I've found the problem.

There certainly were quite a few blunders in the "Case for Christ" book, a select few of which you may already have read from the infidel library on the net. I'm sure you also know quite a few more. What was really stupefying about all Strobel's books was how blatantly he ignores evidence and does not seek out interviews of those skeptical of the points he wishes to establish. That was what immediately struck me when I read his work, especially since it was advertised as an unbiased journalist's search for the truth.

Isn't a capricious whimsical designer exactly what one would expect from reading the Bible?

Touché. :) However, the ID advocates would insist that "capricious and whimsical" isn't a valid description of the Designer they worship. And that's not to mention the epistemological problems it poses to hypothesize a Designer whose work looks indistinguishable from the products of evolution.

But, just to play Devil's Advocate, you write: "The jury-rigged, ad hoc nature of adaptation is just what we would expect from evolution. ID, on the other hand has no explanation for this, other than postulating a capricious, whimsical designer who repeatedly reinvents the wheel rather than reusing his own solutions from other lineages. In other words, ID advocates have to assume a designer whose work looks like the product of evolution. ".

Isn't a capricious whimsical designer exactly what one would expect from reading the Bible?

By filling in the hole in the image with information interpolated from the surrounding photoreceptors, the brain is making the best possible educated guess at what that part of the image really does look like.

Which explains why the black dot on the white paper vanishes. Neato!

AFAIK, most non-predator vertebrates have their eyes placed to cover the widest possible field of vision, which means that most of that field is covered only by one eye. In such a setup, the blind spots of each eye aren't necessarily covered by the other - unless evolutionary pressures have forced the blind spots to "wander" to the area covered by the other. I don't know if that's the case, but I'd wager that most creationists don't either.

Excellent point, and I can supply the answer. I did some work on the visual system in the early part of my career. In most if not all vertebrates that have little binocular overlap, the blind spots are not in the binocular part of the visual field. The main work-around for coping with the blind spot is eye movement. Another, in humans at least, is neural image interpolation, which really is a kluge, not a fix. It gives us the illusion that there is no blind spot, even when we look at an image with only one eye. And yet there is nothing sinister or "deceptive" in this. By filling in the hole in the image with information interpolated from the surrounding photoreceptors, the brain is making the best possible educated guess at what that part of the image really does look like. Most of the time it works fairly well.

Great. Maybe you can get a blurb for the cover from Greta Christina.

Meyer waves this off, claiming (without further explanation) that this arrangement is "a tradeoff that allows the eye to process the vast amount of oxygen it needs in vertebrates" [p.87], which Strobel accepts without qualm. He admits that this arrangement produces a blind spot, but "that's not a problem because people have two eyes and the two blind spots don't overlap".

This argument completely ignores that a majority, probably a rather sizable one at that, of vertebrates have a very small field of stereoscopic vision. AFAIK, most non-predator vertebrates have their eyes placed to cover the widest possible field of vision, which means that most of that field is covered only by one eye. In such a setup, the blind spots of each eye aren't necessarily covered by the other - unless evolutionary pressures have forced the blind spots to "wander" to the area covered by the other. I don't know if that's the case, but I'd wager that most creationists don't either.

This has to do with the fact that human beings always respond most powerfully to narratives - that is, to stories. If our argument consists solely of a carefully presented, dispassionate series of facts, and creationists have an appealing little morality tale about how we're all sinners who displeased God by eating an apple but can be forgiven if we believe in creationism, they'll win every time.

In my view, this is probably the strongest point of attack for dysteleological arguments, at least as far as humans are concerned.

I do want to remark on this comment by Chris Soanes:

We're trying to persuade people to use logical thinking and scientific evidence, not emotions!

I don't agree with that at all. We should be trying to persuade people to value science more highly, yes. But science doesn't have to be a bloodless process of logical deduction, nor do we have to be Vulcans. On the contrary, I think the appropriate and effective use of emotion - in support of conclusions arrived at using the scientific method - is a vital part of our persuasive strategy.

This has to do with the fact that human beings always respond most powerfully to narratives - that is, to stories. If our argument consists solely of a carefully presented, dispassionate series of facts, and creationists have an appealing little morality tale about how we're all sinners who displeased God by eating an apple but can be forgiven if we believe in creationism, they'll win every time. It's a big, simple story in bright colors, it's easy to understand, and it hits all the right emotional buttons. If you want to beat that, you need to have a better story - and we do have one! It's just that scientists haven't been trained to present it in those terms.

The dysteleological argument plays right into this. It's an anomaly in the creationist story - a discordant plot element which they can't adjust to. That's a point we ought to beat on, by stressing the horrendous implications of the idea that a designer deliberately introduced these kludgy, awkward, even malevolent missteps into the human species. That's the kind of persuasion people listen to and respond to.

Also, SteveC asked:

BTW, how's the book coming along?

I don't want to tip my hand, but there may be some news on that in the near future. :)

BTW, how's the book coming along?