[Mr. Silverback]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Even if there was a “gap” that needed to be explained by supernatural powers (there isn't), a supernatural explanation is not and never will be science. If your impulse is to fill every “gap” (real or imagined) with God, then obviously you are engaged in a “God of the gaps” argument.

Thank you. You've now basically confirmed EXACTLY what I was saying.

Now, it's true that I believe in a six day creation. But I didn't say anything about "Once we have something of irreducibly complexity that means Yahweh did it." I said that if an irreducibly complex structure or process is found, it will not be taken as evidence that current evolutionary theory is in error. I never talked about proving creation, I talked about falsifying evolution.

And what's your reaction? "God of the gaps." And you're not even a Dawkinsian!

“We have no physical mechanism to explain it..... must have been God” is not the scientific method. Never was. Never will be.

The problem (as you've shown here and many of your colleagues have shown for the last 12 years) is that "We have no physical mechanism to explain this, so maybe there's something wrong about our theory of the mechanics" will be regarded as outside science, as an example of saying "God did it" whether the person believes God did it or not!

[allmendream]

I.D. is a Trojan horse for creationism.

Irreducible complexity is negative evidence attempting to give short shrift to the power of natural selection of genetic variation, it is not in any way positive evidence of a “designer”. It is an attempt to detail a “gap” that the ‘cdesign proponentist’ wants to fill with ‘the designer’ a.k.a. God.

[Fichori]

“I never talked about proving creation, I talked about falsifying evolution.” [excerpt]

They are always trying to put us in that box.

They know that Evolution cannot be defended, so they try to go on the offensive and hope we don't notice their failure to defend Evolution.