quote:
Behe's definition of IC does not exclude macroscopic IC systems. It is not analogy, it is direct evidence. Instead of dodging this IC system, why don't you confront it. Show me how removing one of the parts of the middle ear will not result in the loss of sound wave transmission from the outer tympanum to the oval window of the inner ear.
Furthermore, can any ID theorist show me any direct evidence of a designer's "mark", so to speak, on any mechanism, process, or organism? A simple, "Made From God" sticker will do, thanks.
Seriously, I just can't understand the logic (or lack thereof) of the ID theorists. How can any ID supporter claim their argument is NOT an appeal to ignorance/god of the gaps? The burden of proof has always rested upon the IDers to show the existence and
possible mechanism of ID, which to the present is still wishful thinking. Why do they continue to believe that since not all evolutionary events can explain the existence of every living organism, it therefore gives credence to ID? If not "X", then "Y" has not and will never be a logical scenario unless evidence supports "Y" in the first place.
Give me positive, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence that godidit to the bacterial flagella ("Y"), and I'll give it a thought. As it stands, it simply can't get past the hypothetical stage. So honestly, why waste any more time with it?
™ Version 4.2