Tipler's Omega Point ideas have received vigorous criticism by physicists and skeptics. Some critics say its arguments violate the Copernican principle, that it incorrectly applies the laws of probability, and that it is really a theology or metaphysics principle made to sound plausible to laypeople by using the esoteric language of physics. Martin Gardner dubbed the Final Anthropic Principle, (FAP), the "completely ridiculous anthropic principle" (CRAP). Oxford-based philosopher Nick Bostrom writes that the final anthropic principle is "pure speculation" with no claim on any special methodological status, despite attempts to elevate it by calling it a "principle", but considers the Omega Point hypothesis to be an interesting philosophical hypothesis in its own right. Philosopher Rem B. Edwards called it "futuristic, pseudoscientific eschatology" that is "highly conjectural, unverified, and improbable". A review in "The New York Times" described Tipler's "final anthropic principle" argument as "rather circular". Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins dismissed the anthropic principle of Tipler and Barrow as "impotent to explain the multifarious details of living creatures" in a chapter treating the subject in "The God Delusion".