I question who wrote this and their reading ability. - Quote:
"A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right" (p. 109). In other words, something cannot have been designed if we do not know the nature of the designer. - How can anyone possibly get that as "in other words"? It clearly means nothing of the kind. That's as far as I've read and don't need to read any further since there's no point. It's like reading a travel guide for europe and the second page says "In Europe, be sure to visit the Sydney opera house". You already know they don't know what they're talking about.