In the first chapters (ch.2-5) Cornilius Hunter discusses some arguments for and against Darwinian evolution. He shows that there are countless of examples of what appears to be design on the biochemical level, that Darwinism doesn't have any idea of how to explain. And when Hunter looks at the positive evidence that is often cited, for example comparative anatomy, he finds that a closer look reveals these evidences to be rather weak and often difficult to explain from the darwinian point of view.
So why is evolution accepted as a "fact"? What gives the evidences their strength as arguments? In chapter 6 Hunter looks at evidence for evolution again, and shows how they are used not as direct evidence for naturalistic evolution, but as indirect evidence: as arguments *against* creation. The argument is "God wouldn't have created this way". In the case of comparative anatomy, the argument is not that it's in accord with the Darwinian predictions (it's not), but that if God created the species separetely, He wouldn't have made them so similar. Hunter shows how evolutionists not only resort at times to this argument, but how it is an underlying assumption in their entire argumentation. And that makes the situation a bit paradoxical, since evolutionists on the one hand claim to be depending solely on the facts of nature and on the other have to assume a certain view of God to make their arguments work. In chapter 7 Hunter shows what kind of God is assumed, and how this concept was nourished in Darwin's times and before. The God of Darwinism is a God whose primary concern is the pleasure of his creation, and who is preferred to be distant rather than having anything to do with the unpleasentness of this world. Hunter goes on to show that the biblical concept of God is quite different in a chapter dealing with God, the nature of creation, and the fall in the Bible. The Bible portrays God as sovereign, creating at His own pleasure, and the things we cannot understand may be due to God as Creator being infinitely superior to us, or to the sin in the world that causes things to be bad. So Darwinists are not only depending on theology to make their arguments work, but on bad theology. (To the Darwinists defence it must be said - as Hunter also notes - that this same bad theology is often accepted in Churches. So Christians should pay special attention to the chapter on the biblical view of God and creation.)
The last two chapters deal with the Intelligent Design (ID) theory, and why it is so strongly opposed, and with design more generally. The problem with ID, says Hunter, is not that it assumes a religios basis for its arguments, but that it argues against the evolutionists religious commitments. Finding examples of design in nature is unacceptable for Darwinism, sonce it goes against their concept of God. In the chapter on design Hunter shows how the designs in nature often follow the same principles as human design (or, it's rather the latter mimicing the former...).
A very clear and insightful book. I recommend it to anyone interested in Darwinism's strengths and weaknesses. And of an alternative view that is both theologically and scientifically superior. As Hunter puts it in the end of the last chapter: "In Darwinism, religion triumphed over science to the detriment of both. We need to recognize and remedy this situation. Let us now fix our religion and our science." Begin by reading this book, and learn what the situation is!