Discovery Institute's "400 Scientist" Roster

Specifically, to which research do you refer? And how would you demonstrate that something is "insufficient to account" for something in the light of the well-understood inability to empirically prove a negative?And how can your statement even be true in the light of scientific/mathematical demonstrations that, in fact, random mutation and natural selection can account for the complexity we observe?Starting with one egregious error of scientific reasoning, and ending with a statement flatly contradicted by observation - your scientific credentials are not apparent. In fact I would say they've been completely disproven. The most likely explanation is that you're not who you say you are - I highly doubt that the real "Dr. Douglas Frank" would be such a leading figure in instrument manufacture if he regularly committed the grave errors in judgement and reasoning you've displayed in your post.

Yet, it can't be. No scientist would commit the elementary, grevious errors you displayed in your post. Or in this one: And it's from this basis of ignorance that you claim support of anti-Darwinian positions?Your self-claimed "credentials" are evaporating, whatever your name is. I pity the poor bastard whose identity you're ripping off, and it's very clever of you to copy down some long words from an engineering handbook, but you're not folling anyone. The fact that you simply can't think scientifically shatters the facade.

And evolution has withstood that scrutiny for 100 years; it's the best-supported theory in science. Moreover it's been responsible for a mountain of successful research, confirmed predictions, and useful explanations; the hallmark of successful theory, as I'm sure you must know. If you are who you say you are, of course. Ah yes, the "apes don't read philosophy!" defense.Of course, as Jamie Lee Curtis reminds us, apes do read philosophy; they just don't understand it.