The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design

[calabrone]

That's my point. It is not non-belief, it is a positive choice of belief (in this case)

No I'm sorry you've lost me! It's not a positive choice of belief. I don't believe in a creator at this point because there's insufficient evidence. I don't know how the universe came into existence and Im not qualified to give any kind of answer to the question. The only choice I have is to not believe in a creator at this present time.

Just so I understand you, and it's quite likely that I don't as you seem an intelligent kind of chap. Is all non belief a matter of faith or just the question of a creator? For example... If you believe in the Loch Ness Monster it's a matter of faith. If you don't believe in the Loch Ness it's a matter of faith.

[VillagePlank]

No I'm sorry you've lost me! It's not a positive choice of belief. I don't believe in a creator at this point because there's insufficient evidence. I don't know how the universe came into existence and Im not qualified to give any kind of answer to the question. The only choice I have is to not believe in a creator at this present time.

Just so I understand you, and it's quite likely that I don't as you seem an intelligent kind of chap. Is all non belief a matter of faith or just the question of a creator? For example... If you believe in the Loch Ness Monster it's a matter of faith. If you don't believe in the Loch Ness it's a matter of faith.

Ahh, I see your point.

I am approaching it from a more anthropological point of view. That is, because we, apparently, have the choice to believe in a creator, then one must choose one option or the other.

But, as you say, one might easily argue that one doesn't believe in a creator in the same way that one doesn't believe in gnomes at the end of the garden (not sure about PP's garden, though)

I guess, I should concede that it boils down to whether you were given a choice - you either do or you don't. There are still unknown factors throughout science (such as the creation of life) that cannot be determined by the scientific method - indeed, until we create life in the lab, it will never be resolved.

Looking at the unknown questions, I feel (and that's just me) that I need to make choice that it was put there by a creator, or it is hitherto unknown science that will, one day, be described fully.

Inductive logic shows that it will one day be fully explained, but then there is evidence that we are at an empasse where a major leap in technological expertise is needed to move in that direction - a leap that we couldn't possibly comprehend until it happens. It is not part of the deterministic, Newtonian model, it is something new, something poorly understood.

In my opinion that (still) leaves room for a creator, and it is impossible simply to presume that science will fill in all the holes. Therefore there still is choice when one wants to describe certain observable events.

If I asked you to describe how life was created in the very beginning (the first protocell) then I think you would be put in a corner, and you would have to choose that either there was a creator, or that you believe that science will one day solve the problem.

Both answers are responses of faith, and not of science.

EDIT: there is, also, the 'I don't know' response, but that's really sitting on the fence, so you wouldn't be in a corner, and anyway, in reality, most people swing either one way or the other :lol:

Edited July 12, 2007 by VillagePlank

[calabrone]

Thanks for a well thought out response VP.

I really love the big unknown questions such as the origin of life. I think as humans we need them and they feed our inquistive nature. My feeling about the creator answer is that it is too simplistic. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it just seems to be an easy way out. We humans create things so that must be how life started.. it was created. Just as we create cars, computers and watches then god must do the same.

I haven't studied the origin of life but I'm aware that the chances of the first protocell coming together by chance are astronomical. However it only had to happen once and the universe is a very big place, not to mention theories of multiverses etc. If you put me on the spot, in a corner, then I would probably have faith in science to one day unravel the answer. So, yes, there you are. You are right!

[VillagePlank]

I haven't studied the origin of life but I'm aware that the chances of the first protocell coming together by chance are astronomical.

Yes, a new and exciting sub-field of chaos is the field of emergence.

This assumes that if the conditions were right then life had to happen with no question. There are certainly interesting times ahead for those who are prepared to keep an open mind.

If you're interested I can post an 'essential' reading list. (Most people don't buy books like these so Amazon almost give 'em away!!)

Edited July 12, 2007 by VillagePlank

[calabrone]

If you're interested I can post an 'essential' reading list. (Most people don't buy books like these so Amazon almost give 'em away!!)

Yes, thanks. It would be much appreciated.

[PersianPaladin]

Just so we can be absolutely clear, here:

No it doesn't mean that. Look in a dictionary - it means it relates to quality or kind - it's antonym is quantitatively. See more your total failure to comprehend what is going on below.

What do you think is programming the genome or the GA? Sure I wrote the process in the GA, and for all I care you can attribute the process in nature to God. But in both cases external forces act on the genome. External. That means environment.

No. You need to realise that you need to read others posts, not to ignore them, and provide argument against them.

And by the way it is perfectly feasible to have a computer program itself. The very start of the process is the notion of reflection (but it goes way deeper than that) and the sum really does exceed the value of its parts. Now whilst I am quite flattered that you would attribute my status to some form of god-like creature, I am, unfortunately, not that conceited. I am afraid that this is an area that you will actually need to research into as I cannot divulge much more as it constitutes commerical information. Of course, that you think you are in a position to speak for what 6 billion other members of your species 'need to realise' presumes the notion that in fact you are the intelligent creator, if not, at least, the mildly ill-mannered benefactor that millions worship on a daily basis.

However, I do understand that you have a reasonable defence because you, like many others of your ilk, do not understand how it is possible, you are left with either presupposing the existence of something metaphysical or using google and find differing opinion, and just post without reading what it is that you are posting.

A claim I'm sure you wish to deny, but the fact remains that article you just posted claims that GA was quantitative, not qualitative (he says with a 'GA a trait can only be quantitive'), so with reference to your previous question, I think there's nothing wrong with that assertion - I agree with it (although you and the moron clearly do not) A childish trick on my part, I agree, but nevertheless it illustrates exactly what standpoint you are actually arguing from.

So do GA, and GP's (do a bit of research on genetic programming - that is the notion that you can use genetic mechanics to write software. That works, too, but I'm not going to waste my time on telling you how, but there is plenty of reference material available through your favourite search engine)

Yes they are.*

Yes they do*

*For the short answers please refer to previous posts

I did try to pass it 'over to you' to give you space to describe the assertion, and theory that everything in life is designed. It is disappointing (amogst other things) that you have failed, once again, to provide anything but ill-advised reactive comment, which, even by my pet cat, can easily be torn to shreds

I'll try and put it another way VP.....

The process of crossover occurs strictly within one species (i.e. with equal core nucleotide configurations and dna-sets) and, as you know, only biota of one species can breed. Now the process of meiosis and haploid crossover through sexual reproduction is likely to be influenced by the respective biome or done over a range of differing biomes. There is certain room within the gene-pool for genetic\phenotypic variation as a result of environmental adaption. The environment sets the conditions.....the organisms responds to the environment through the process of adaption that the existing dna-configuration allows; i.e. this is why we get differing 'races' in the human species that can inter-breed. Now, the way the organism responds to the environment is quite amazing in itself and pretty logical and non-random. You have to admit that there must be some innate intelligence flowing within the system and reflecting in the activity of every cell; like different neurons within a super-intelligent neural network. Now, maybe this neural network is merely the manifest reflection of a beyond-manifest Super Intelligence that guides it all and inspires it all?

There has been no convincing evidence that crossover and mutation leads to speciation. There is evidence that it leads to variation within a particular species, however. At what point does inter-breeding stop and a new species result from this process? This would require that the respective amount of mutations needed (something which you admitted that is required!!) happened simultaneously in both sexes of the respective organism and continued to occur in an orderly fashion (free of damaging mutations) so as to not damage the core nucleotides\chromosome structure of the species and render it infertile or unfit. Speciation is already a controversial area that scientists still do not fully agree on as a theory.....so I am yet to be convinced that cross-over can result in speciation (except perhaps by cladogenesis...which doesn't resolve the problem of variation and species integrity within the same biome)

We also have punctuated equilibrium, where species suddenly start appearing at certain points in the fossil record...however this conflicts with phylitic gradualism - which suggests that the population evolves slowly in response to stresses rather than the individual. But this would imply an equal environmental-response by every individual in the respective biome to the stress and of course...the similar configurations of chromosomes via reproduction and a simultaneous timing and formation of mutations. Very low chance.....so evolutionists use the arguments of long time-scales to try and argue for speciation.

I prefer to argue for the case of the super-intelligence neural network. That the whole world (Gaia) is a reflection of a cosmic super-intelligence behind the scenes; inspiring every cell to movement, to the formation of beauty and harmony. Beauty and harmony is the perfection of order....and it seems that the principle of the cell is macrocosmically reflected in the gyres of our oceans and our skies, in our solar systems and our universes. We cannot escape this unity, and the persistence of such unity exists in species and their forms that have lasted millions of years. The Creator is the inexplicable, the formless energy and everything we see in Gaia is Her reflection, her harmony and creativity.

This is my evidence.

Edited July 13, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[Admiral_Bobski]

This is my evidence.

The problem is that there was no actual evidence in that post - only speculation and opinion.

I'm going to post the link to the second article in that list from earlier again - if you haven't read it yet (and I assume from your last post that you haven't) then you really should since it explains pretty much everything to which you object.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne05/coyne05_index.html

We also have punctuated equilibrium, where species suddenly start appearing at certain points in the fossil record...however this conflicts with phylitic gradualism - which suggests that the population evolves slowly in response to stresses rather than the individual.

One thing worth noting about the fossil record (a point raised in the link above) is that there isn't really any such thing as "sudden" appearances of life forms. The "Cambrian Explosion" sounds very sudden, like a Creator pointed his finger and said "Ka-pow!", but in fact it occurred over a long period of time - perhaps as much as 30 million years. For comparison, the human race has been around (in a form we recognise) for an absolute maximum of only 5 million years.

The above link clarifies the artificiality, and wrongness, of the concept of "Irreducible Complexity". It explains how speciation occurs, and shows that so-called "Missing Links" have been found in the fossil record. It also explains how ID, despite its elaborate dressing-up in pseudoscientific clothing, is essentially nothing more than a cleverly reworded version of Creationism (make some concessions with regards to the age of the Earth and drop the word "God" from your argument and voila!).

The fundamental problem with the ID argument is that saying "Evolution doesn't explain such-and-such, so therefore there must be some guiding intelligence" is not actually evidence. Einstein's theory of relativity doesn't explain everything - does this mean that some intelligent superbeing created everything? Oh...hang on...there's the problem... If one starts down the ID road then science is necessarily destroyed en route. Why should an intelligent designer stop with animals - why not go the whole hog and explain everything there is to explain by invoking a designer?

And with that we return to the dark ages...

CB

[Guest Viking141]

Thought this might be of interest in this debate:

BBC Science

[PersianPaladin]

Thought this might be of interest in this debate:

BBC Science

Evolution? I don't think so. This is not evidence of transition or speciation...perhaps an example of adaption however.

But nature is so intelligent anyway, no organism has power or can make decisions unto itself....hence why I used the neural-network analogy.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Probably right, faith in inherently illogical and using logic to try to disprove it just isn't going to work. I've learnt that also recently after getting into to debates with Christians and so on, it's not worth it. They will never change their beliefs, how can you use logic on people who think illogically? Won't work.

This is bigotry.

Issac Newton

John Ray

Descartes

Albert Einstein

Benjamin Franklin

On Magpie's revisionist anti-Christian history, these chaps who either all believed in God, or had a positive view of religion, were nutters.

Edited July 13, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[VillagePlank]

This is bigotry.

Issac Newton

John Ray

Descartes

Albert Einstein

Benjamin Franklin

On Magpie's revisionist anti-Christian history, these chaps who either all believed in God, or had a positive view of religion, were nutters.

You, mate, are just as guilty.

You've forgetten to mention that Newton spent most of his life trying to turn lead into gold. Einstein spent the dying years of his life trying to argue against quantum mechanics. Descartes was a failed philosopher, and Benjamyn Franklin was a plagiarist. I have no idea who John Ray was.

If you want to quote from the past, make sure you know your history.

Please.

[Bobby]

This is bigotry.

Issac Newton

John Ray

Descartes

Albert Einstein

Benjamin Franklin

On Magpie's revisionist anti-Christian history, these chaps who either all believed in God, or had a positive view of religion, were nutters.

I wouldn't say there were nutters. Just illogical.

Edited July 13, 2007 by Magpie

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

You, mate, are just as guilty.

You've forgetten to mention that Newton spent most of his life trying to turn lead into gold. Einstein spent the dying years of his life trying to argue against quantum mechanics. Descartes was a failed philosopher, and Benjamyn Franklin was a plagiarist. I have no idea who John Ray was.

If you want to quote from the past, make sure you know your history.

Please.

You don't know who John Ray was, and you tell me I don't know my history?

Calling Benjamin Franklin a plagiarist also makes you look smart, particularly when the man he is supposed to have copied was He Who Never Existed on my list. (Franklin never claimed authorship of the proverbs).

I'd say trying to place man at the centre of the Earth's climate system will rank pretty high on the Stupid Things Men Have Done list. Nobody can argue with the beauty of Newton's physics and, (co)inventor of calculus no less, his logical abilities.

I wouldn't say there were nutters. Just illogical.

All Christians are illogical. Therefore you will never go to a Christian doctor, teacher, vote for a Christian politician, because they will screw up your life. If that's not bigotry then you are either being illogical or lying, in that you do actually consider many Christians capable of logical thought.

ID is a logical evidence-based theory. You might not like what it says about the authority of Darwinism in the here-and-now, at the small scale of the microscope but you have to demonstrate with science at the level at which ID's claims most strongly resonate, why the claims of ID are wrong.

My view is ID is the biological equivalent of quantum mechanics to Darwinism's Newtonian physics.

Edited July 13, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Bobby]

You don't know who John Ray was, and you tell me I don't know my history?

Calling Benjamin Franklin a plagiarist also makes you look smart, particularly when the man he is supposed to have copied was He Who Never Existed on my list. (Franklin never claimed authorship of the proverbs).

I'd say trying to place man at the centre of the Earth's climate system will rank pretty high on the Stupid Things Men Have Done list. Nobody can argue with the beauty of Newton's physics and, (co)inventor of calculus no less, his logical abilities.

All Christians are illogical. Therefore you will never go to a Christian doctor, teacher, vote for a Christian politician, because they will screw up your life. If that's not bigotry then you are either being illogical or lying, in that you do actually consider many Christians capable of logical thought.

ID is a logical evidence-based theory. You might not like what it says about the authority of Darwinism in the here-and-now, at the small scale of the microscope but you have to demonstrate with science at the level at which ID's claims most strongly resonate, why the claims of ID are wrong.

My view is ID is the biological equivalent of quantum mechanics to Darwinism's Newtonian physics.

Way to put words in my mouth! I never said nor think those things. Just that their particular religious belief is illogical. If it's logical, where is the logic and reasoning behind it? I don't see much - it's faith, and that's fine, but it's not logical. People on here have already tried to show why ID is wrong, but I don't think it works, because it's impossible to prove wrong. All the evidence in the world already exists, accumulated over hundreds of years by science. If that won't convince people that it's wrong, then nothing will, and debating the point further is a waste of time.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Way to put words in my mouth! I never said nor think those things. Just that their particular religious belief is illogical. If it's logical, where is the logic and reasoning behind it? I don't see much - it's faith, and that's fine, but it's not logical.

This is what you've said -

how can you use logic on people who think illogically? Won't work.

If you are saying you think belief in religion is illogical I support your freedom to say that even though I may disagree.

That is not the same as what you previously said.

If however you believe Christians are "people who think illogically" I will accept your retraction of quote 2 and treat it as a misunderstanding.

People on here have already tried to show why ID is wrong, but I don't think it works, because it's impossible to prove wrong. All the evidence in the world already exists, accumulated over hundreds of years by science. If that won't convince people that it's wrong, then nothing will, and debating the point further is a waste of time.

This is the silly thing: claims of ID are proved by observation - that is, irreducible complexity. Furthermore they are claims that can be disproved if it can be shown evolution can proceed to build such complex and precise machinery at such a small scale as a flagellum in the here and now. Despite the eagerness of Darwinists to proclaim how right they are and how all ID are Faith Head idiots - Not Happened. Until it does ID will be put forward as science on a par with Darwinism.

Edited July 13, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Guest Viking141]

Any chance we could get back to the subject at hand instead of indulging in petty personal slanging matches?

[Bobby]

This is what you've said -

If you are saying you think belief in religion is illogical I support your freedom to say that even though I may disagree.

That is not the same as what you previously said.

If however you believe Christians are "people who think illogically" I will accept your retraction of quote 2 and treat it as a misunderstanding.

This is the silly thing: claims of ID are proved by observation - that is, irreducible complexity. Furthermore they are claims that can be disproved if it can be shown evolution can proceed to build such complex and precise machinery at such a small scale as a flagellum in the here and now. Despite the eagerness of Darwinists to proclaim how right they are and how all ID are Faith Head idiots - Not Happened. Until it does ID will be put forward as science on a par with Darwinism.

They think illogically in that particular belief. They may be perfectly logical in every other belief, but in my opinion belief in a supreme being / intelligent design just is not logical.

As for the evidence... well, you clearly interpret the evidence completely differently to me and science. If we are seeing the evidence and totally different lights, then none of us will change our minds eh?

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

They think illogically in that particular belief. They may be perfectly logical in every other belief, but in my opinion belief in a supreme being / intelligent design just is not logical.

I don't object that you are entitled to your opinion on that. Sorry if I misunderstood you before; however, many Richard Dawkins followers would be happy to call religion a "mental illness" and therefore brand all Christians illogical. I'm glad you're capable of thinking for yourself on this subject.

As for the evidence... well, you clearly interpret the evidence completely differently to me and science. If we are seeing the evidence and totally different lights, then none of us will change our minds eh?

How can you possibly be wrong when you and science are bff?

So what is evidence if it is not that which is observed?

Perhaps you can shed some light on that since ID theory proceeds directly from observation.

Due to the joys of internet I can provide a drawing of the observation here

this microscopic "outboard motor" - flagellum - is 45 nanometers wide (1 nanometer is 1 billlionth of a meter).

The spinning bit can spin many thousand RPM - incredibly efficient

Now, how did this complex, tiny machine with under 100 separate (see video at start of thread for details) parts evolve?

"It just did" is not scientifically satisfying. Take one part away, like with an outboard motor, the thing does not work. Irreducible complexity.

Darwinism seems to break down at the nano-scale of life.

Edited July 13, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Any chance we could get back to the subject at hand instead of indulging in petty personal slanging matches?

I think it's fun.

[Guest Viking141]

Why does that not surprise me?!!

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

*prod*

Lost interest in the discussion now facts are involved?

Or is the silence reflective of a grudging acceptance that Darwinism, as an explanatory theory, has limits, and in ID has met its limit.

[Admiral_Bobski]

*prod*

Lost interest in the discussion now facts are involved?

Or is the silence reflective of a grudging acceptance that Darwinism, as an explanatory theory, has limits, and in ID has met its limit.

I think people are wondering why they're spending time discussing this

Evolution explains things nicely - ID explains nothing.

:o

CB

EDIT - Although the flagellum is apparently a nice weapon for IDers to use against Evolution, there are two points worth noting: firstly, there are in fact evolutionary explanations for them, despite what IDers would have you believe. Secondly, it is probably the single most debated organism in Evolution, even among Evolutionists (who debate the particulars of how the flagellum came to be, but don't doubt its explicability in terms of evolutionary theory). For more info check out this Wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

Edited July 14, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

if you don't peer too close or ask questions that would turn the holy grail of biology - the origin of life - over to the chemists...

Your Edit -

What "evolutionary explanations" do you subscribe to? Since not all Darwinians agree I'd be interested to know what you think is the Oscar winning proof.

evolutionists "don't doubt its explicability in terms of evolutionary theory". i'm sure they don't. not sure it's a very convincing second pillar to support the evolutionary argument as it almost suggests they've not got a good explanation yet.

What's your view?

Edited July 14, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Admiral_Bobski]

if you don't peer too close or ask questions that would turn the holy grail of biology - the origin of life - over to the chemists...

Your Edit -

What "evolutionary explanations" do you subscribe to? Since not all Darwinians agree I'd be interested to know what you think is the Oscar winning proof.

evolutionists "don't doubt its explicability in terms of evolutionary theory". i'm sure they don't. not sure it's a very convincing second pillar to support the evolutionary argument as it almost suggests they've not got a good explanation yet.

What's your view?

Well, first off it's worth pointing out that the theory of evolution says nothing about how life came to be in the first place (which has been mentioned several times in this thread so far). The Origin of Species is not the same thing as the Origin of Life.

The "evolutionary explanations" which I susbscribe to, as you put it, are the basics - the fundamental basics of evolution (that life adapts and varies over time) are pretty well accepted. It's the details which are still a matter for debate in scientific circles - precise determinations of how particular changes could have occurred, but no debate concerning the fact that the changes did occur.

My field of interest is Physics, not Biology, and I don't claim to know all the ins and outs of evolutionary theory, but that which I know of is scientifically credible. The "Oscar winning Proof"? Well, proof is a hard thing to come by in any science, but the evidence (fossil record, genetic experiments etc.) is pretty darned compelling. If ID is to compete as an actual theory then it's going to need to come up with some actual evidence, and evidence which is at least as compelling as evolution's.

Did you read the Wiki article? There's a few suggestions of possible evolutionary explanations for the existence of the flagellum. The fact that there are any credible suggestions gives credit to the idea that there might be something in it. But the IDers would have you believe that the flagellum is an example of this so-called "Irreducible Complexity". The various explanations of the flagellum refute this complaint by offering plausible steps up to the observed level of complexity - hardly irreducible. The debate is over what those steps actually were.

My view? Evolution is a plausible explanation for the existence of the wide variety of life that exists on our planet. It does not negate the existence of a Creator, nor does it seek to; it simply explains life as well as it can. It seems to work very well. ID, on the other hand, seeks to destroy science in favour of the belief that nothing around us is truly explicable as it is all the work of a being greater than ourselves. Interestingly, this belief makes mankind both "Special" and "Inferior" at the same time.

CB

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Well, first off it's worth pointing out that the theory of evolution says nothing about how life came to be in the first place (which has been mentioned several times in this thread so far). The Origin of Species is not the same thing as the Origin of Life.

Okay. But who says? Seems to me it's the same question as in both cases you have to explain how something new was created.

Big speciation can be explained by evolution. But just because evolution explains new things at one level, should demand it to operate at another level... where it cannot explain new life forms?

The problem of separating the two questions is there are dozens of different definitions of what a species is.

Until the subject matter can be adequately defined there is no reason to believe the evolutionary explanation is the only one for the creation of "new" things. Nobody would deny species exist, just one must recognise it's a slippery concept.

Over historical time and at the everyday level of the naturalist evolution makes sense. But when you peer at the chemistry, nature at the smallest scale, evolution doesn't.

Unless you subscribe to Universal Darwinism you should already be comfortable with the fact that at some point evolution stops and laws of physics and chemistry take over.

The "evolutionary explanations" which I susbscribe to, as you put it, are the basics - the fundamental basics of evolution (that life adapts and varies over time) are pretty well accepted. It's the details which are still a matter for debate in scientific circles - precise determinations of how particular changes could have occurred, but no debate concerning the fact that the changes did occur.

This is what you seem to miss. Darwinism is not rendered false in the intelligent design worldview, it's just not all supreme. That is, nobody should deny that the evolutionary, Darwinian explanation explains, for example, the (man-induced) evolution of sheep from its sheep ancestor.

The evolutionary explanation, that observable genetic traits were selected and spread in frequency until the daughter population was sufficiently far from the mother to be a new species, makes sense. Natural selection at work.

My field of interest is Physics, not Biology, and I don't claim to know all the ins and outs of evolutionary theory, but that which I know of is scientifically credible. The "Oscar winning Proof"? Well, proof is a hard thing to come by in any science, but the evidence (fossil record, genetic experiments etc.) is pretty darned compelling. If ID is to compete as an actual theory then it's going to need to come up with some actual evidence, and evidence which is at least as compelling as evolution's.

While evolution can explain the big things over long periods of time, natural selection does not explain the nano-scale of life.

As a physicist you'd be aware that Newtonian and Einsteinian physics seem to inhabit different worlds - concepts such as force, mass and gravity can get you to the moon, but (like me) are useless anywhere near a super-collider. The Darwinian explanation is similarly broken at the cellular level - this is my theory.

Did you read the Wiki article? There's a few suggestions of possible evolutionary explanations for the existence of the flagellum. The fact that there are any credible suggestions gives credit to the idea that there might be something in it. But the IDers would have you believe that the flagellum is an example of this so-called "Irreducible Complexity". The various explanations of the flagellum refute this complaint by offering plausible steps up to the observed level of complexity - hardly irreducible. The debate is over what those steps actually were.

At the nano-scale of life you are dealing with very few parts; you need to appreciate what this means for evolution.

There is a much bigger leap between an "intermediate" form and the new life form at the cellular-scale than at the big organism world of a sheep and its direct ancestor.

At the nano-scale there isn't any wiggle room for evolution to create complex cellular speed boats by the small, gradual steps demanded by Darwin and all the evolutionary theorists after him.

Here's the flagellum again:

IIRC the flagellum has as few as 80 parts so any evolution less than 1 part at a time would seem to contradict Darwinism.

If scientists can evolve a flagellum through "cellular husbandry" then evolutionary argument would make sense. Perhaps someone should try?

As yet "cellular husbandry" not been demonstrated; probably because it's impossible to evolve something so simple and complex.

My view? Evolution is a plausible explanation for the existence of the wide variety of life that exists on our planet. It does not negate the existence of a Creator, nor does it seek to; it simply explains life as well as it can. It seems to work very well. ID, on the other hand, seeks to destroy science in favour of the belief that nothing around us is truly explicable as it is all the work of a being greater than ourselves. Interestingly, this belief makes mankind both "Special" and "Inferior" at the same time.

CB

Don't know if that counts as science but it gave me a special warm and fuzzy feeling inside which makes your argument sound more convincing!