[bondserv]

Irreducible complexity from an engineering and informational science perspective closes the door to anything but intelligent design.

[freedumb2003]

>>Irreducible complexity from an engineering and informational science perspective closes the door to anything but intelligent design.<<

Can we please not do this again?

It pains me to explain to lurkers that Conservatives DO understand science. Your statement does not help.

[jonathonandjennifer]

I believe Darwin himself said essentially the same thing you just said. If irreducible complexity were to be shown it would throw his whole theory into question.

[Kozak]

So based on your logic where did that designer come from?

[Pox]

Irreducible complexity from an engineering and informational science perspective closes the door to anything but intelligent design.

Pure nonsense. The fact that we do not currently understand the mechanics of a given object or subject does in no way default the ultimate answer to "Intelligent Design". Such an absurd conclusion and statement defies reason.

[ctdonath2]

As a computer engineer, I can assure you very simple processes can support and expand to very complex behavior.

[Nifster]

Amen

[DoodleDawg]

Irreducible complexity from an engineering and informational science perspective closes the door to anything but intelligent design.

Point 15 in the article addresses that.

[BwanaNdege]

I challenge any evolutionist to watch these and then explain how time and random chance created this, let alone how & why these continue to function.

Molecular Machinery of Life

ATP Synthase: The power plant of the cell

Then watch one of the world's leading physicists and Nobel Prize winner, Leonard Susskind, nervously squirm and try to dance around what he admits is absolute evidence of a Designer.

Closer To Truth asks Leonard Susskind: Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind? (if you are impatient and not into Physics, jump to the 6:00 minute mark)

[BroJoeK]

bondserv: "Irreducible complexity from an engineering and informational science perspective closes the door to anything but intelligent design."

Einstein (1916): "God does not play dice with the universe."

But of course, Einstein was wrong about that, because the evidence shows the Universe to be God's giant gambling casino, in which He has rigged every machine to return odds favorable to the House -- Him.
So we can say that evolution was designed by God to produce results he wants -- us.

At that point the conflict between science and religion, for the most part, disappears.
Of course some will always insist that their "strict interpretations" are the only ones possible, and you are free to chose which interpretations you prefer...