[dmz]

I read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". Does that count?

Behe is very scientific when discussing flagellum or blood clotting or the eye, but that is in there to "prove" how complex the system is.

The conclusion reached from that discussion is philosophical in nature, in the never very humble opinion of this commentator with a degree in philosophy (yes, martha, we do exist). That one is a scientist does not lead necessarily to the conclusion that the position held by said scientist is, in fact, a scientific position.

Irreducible complexity is a philosophical position. That we infer design from irreducible complexity is another layer of that philosophical position.

JMO.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Thanks for the polite reply. Behe's is one of the works I was referring to. But I'd say that what you refer to as the author's eventual philosophical interpretation (that is, non-scientific) is not philosophy, but logical extension. And that logical extension, in my opinion, is as much based in scientific principle as the "logical extension" that evolutionists hold (that since there is a sequence of change through generational adaptation, therefore all evolution must be able to be de-volved back to an extremely simple, single source of life).

And as I implied, we are all affected by personal bias on this issue. The point is, none knows for sure and 100% belief in either approach involves a bit of "faith" that cannot be proved scientifically to be ultimate truth. Therefore I say, in the true scientific and philosophical spirit, let's consider all the possibilities.

An interesting note: the earliest Western philosophers, what are grouped as the pre-Socratics though many were in fact contemporaneous with Socrates, were called phusikos, the term that later was used for physics. It refers to those that studied the nature of things. They were, essentially, philosophers of the "nature sciences." Funny how we argue all around the circle and come back to what was being debated 2500 years ago!!