[Dimensio]

Mike Gene's comments are telling. He backpedals from the original point of the mousetrap argument once it's disproved, going from "the flagellum must have been intelligently designed" to "we don't know that it came about through step-by-step processes, so we should still consider intelligent design."

In other words, his whole argument comes down to "you can't prove that it didn't happen this way!", which is not science.

[Heartlander]

Mike Gene's comments are telling. He backpedals from the original point of the mousetrap argument once it's disproved, going from "the flagellum must have been intelligently designed" to "we don't know that it came about through step-by-step processes, so we should still consider intelligent design."

It’s interesting that you responded to post #27 this way. Mike Gene is quoting in his sixth paper what he originally stated in his first paper. He appears to be consistent.

In other words, his whole argument comes down to "you can't prove that it didn't happen this way!", which is not science.

I agree that "you can't prove that it didn't happen this way!" is not science, which is exactly what my problem is with methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. They have put science into a naturalistic box and we are literally dealing with "you can't prove that it didn't happen this way!"