Pg 103--He goes on to argue that if the laws of phsyics govern the universe and a Christians states that God uses those laws to let the universe run normally then there is no room for the miraculous. This is called a non-sequitor, that is, a conclusion that does not follow from the premise. I would suppose that all Christians affirm that God created the universe, created the laws of physics, and uses those laws to allow the universe to run in an ordinary and predictable pattern. This in no way limits, restricts, or prohibits God from suspending those laws in any given time (ex: walking on water). Afterall if He is powerful enough to create gravity then surely He can supersede it.
Pg 108--He blurs the lines between Macro and Micro Evolution. The fact that a Labrador and a Poodle can mix to make a Labradoodle does not prove Darwinian Evolution. What geneticists have found is that there is always a limit when breeding animals. You can mix dogs with other dogs but guess what...they always turn out to be dogs. Oh yea, by the way, if you then let these new breeds go to breed with other dogs then eventually everything goes back to the original state. So even with OUR INTELLIGENT INTERVENTION we cannot take this example of micro evolution and have it jump the hurdle to Macro evolution. Macro Evolution would be like breeding two different dogs to get a whole new species. The classic example here is the Fruit Fly. Since their generations are so quickly produced, scientists can breed them and go through thousands of generations in just a few years. What have they found? They discovered that even with mutations all you get is fruit flys.
Pg 110--Continuing his example of micro evolution which he tries to claim is proof of macro evolution, David Mills gives the exmaple of the Peppered Moth. Go look it up for yourself on the internet. Again, he shows his absolute lack of any scholarship. This example has shown to be debunked. How so? 1) It was revealed that they bred moths in labs and stuck them on trees to take pictures. 2) Sometimes in the experiment led by Bernard Kettlewell they would nail or glue dead moths onto the trees. First, this shows you the fudging of evidence. Secondly, these moths don't rest on tree trunks. 3) University of Chicago evolutionary Biologist Jerry Coyne says this example has been thrown out amongst the higher ups in the sceintific arena. To read more on why this experiment is thrown out click here and note the footnotes of the author.
As we continue our critique of "Atheist Universe" by David Mills we are continually unimpressed by his dated arguments. If he would simply do a google search he would have seen that these arguments have been dealt a death blow years ago.