[ColdSteelTalon]

"As an icon of antievolution, the flagellum has fallen," says Prof. Miller, a practicing Catholic. "If bits and pieces of a machine are useful for different functions, it means that natural selection could indeed produce elements of a biochemical machine for different purposes."

Note that he uses the word "could"...

Always look for the words "could", "perhaps"... Its a dead giveaway that means NOT PROVEN.

[Dimensio]

Always look for the words "could", "perhaps"... Its a dead giveaway that means NOT PROVEN.

Yeah, funny that. Evolution, being theory, can't be proven, so no intellectually honest scientist will claim that it has been proven. No theory in science can ever be proven. That's just how science works.

[_Jim]

Note that he uses the word "could"...

Always look for the words "could", "perhaps"... Its a dead giveaway that means NOT PROVEN.

While I believe in God, it would appear, I think, to those who use only their senses to tangibly determine what is or is not, God is only a theory and therefore 'could' exist ...

For the strict creationsists, I think they have lost the battle before it is started on this basis; just as evolution cannot be strictly proven - neither can God be strictly proven, yet, whether he does exist or not is immaterial to fact ('facts' stand aside from and independent of what puny mortals may conceive in their limited minds at any given moment) ...

The 'creationsists' fail to address those common elements we find in DNA, those components that result in the formation of some rather 'common' elements that are shared with different so-called species. 'til they come to grips with this aspect they will be continually 'inventing' specious reasons for 'differences' they cannot explain and therfore reamain forever ignoring that rather large elephant (present for all to see) that occupies their front living rooms ...

[Ichneumon]

["As an icon of antievolution, the flagellum has fallen," says Prof. Miller, a practicing Catholic. "If bits and pieces of a machine are useful for different functions, it means that natural selection could indeed produce elements of a biochemical machine for different purposes."]

Note that he uses the word "could"... Always look for the words "could", "perhaps"... Its a dead giveaway that means NOT PROVEN.

You're entirely missing the point.

Behe and his followers try to "disprove" evolution by claiming to have found structures that "could NOT" have formed by stepwise changes, and they assert that they have "proven" that it could not have happened in any manner whatsoever.

Unfortunately for Behe and his followers, they have overlooked many possibilities. In order to conclusively disprove an overblown claim of impossibility, it is only necessary to point out some way in which the event *could* have occurred which the claimant has overlooked. It is *not* neccessary to prove that it *did* happen that way.

Example:

Detective: "It is provably impossible for the deceased to have died by slipping on wet grass, because it did not rain that day."

Me: "It's hardly impossible, since for example the neighbor may have turned on his lawn sprinker."

Detective: "Oops."