Don, I'm not trying to poke fun or anything like that, seriously. But I can get a bit confused by your posts. I'm just wanting to understand the underlying points you are trying to put forth and I'm not sure I clearly see those coming through. I like to sincerely try and understand everyone's viewpoints. Do you think that evolution, in the form of natural selection, is a mechanism used by an intelligent designer or are you arguing against natural selection altogether in any form? I hope you read this and answer, I don't intend to attack your belief either way, I just want to understand the underlying foundation of your thoughts so I can understand your posts better. Thanks. "Don J. Colton" <djcolton@piol.com> wrote:August 20, 2005 - An Open Letter to Science Magazine From William Dembski, Guillermo Gonzalez, Paul Nelson, Jay Richards, and Jonathan Witt. Alan I. Leshner ("Redefining Science," July 8) says intelligent design isn't science because scientific theories "explain what can be observed" and are "testable by repeatable observations and experimentation." But particular design arguments meet this standard. Biologist Michael Behe, for instance, argues that design is detectable in the bacterial flagellum because the tiny motor needs all its parts to function-is irreducibly complex-a hallmark of designed systems. The argument rests on what we know about designed systems, and from our growing knowledge of the cellular world and its many mechanisms. How to test and discredit Behe's argument? Provide a continuously functional evolutionary pathway from simple ancestor to present motor. Darwinists like Kenneth Miller point to the hope of future discoveries, and to the type III secretory system as a machine possibly co-opted on the evolutionary path to the flagellum. The argument is riddled with problems , but it shows that Miller, at least, understands perfectly well that Behe's argument is testable. If irreducible complexity can't even be considered in microbiology, how do we test the Darwinian story there? We certainly don't observe the Darwinian mechanism producing molecular machines. Is it true by default, by dogmatic pronouncement? That doesn't sound very scientific. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com --------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page