I am flattered, but I should pass on this one since I get in trouble every time I note that Darwinists seek through reductionism to define an emergent phenomenon, whereas IDers appear to be trying to cite an emergent phenomenon without sufficient referral to the evidence to show that it is emergent. If the debates were kept to that limitation, without bringing in God or anti-god rhetoric, the discussion might actually accomplish something. Evolution exhibits emergent properties, but we do have an extensive fossil record to which Science may refer; with a voluminous record of phyla, missing data isn't a refutation of reductionist notions so much as it is evidence of emergent phenomena ... to extrapolate existence or non-existence of a designer is oblique to the real issues. And you don't even want me to get into the illogic/irrationality dripping from creationist dogma.