Shall I ping the list, or have we had enough of this subject for a while?
Not prepared to argue about Time's coverage of anything much unless we go back to when I used to read it. Maybe into the early 80s.
If it picks up steam, ping it -- if it fades, let it die a deserved death, it's the same old whines.
But I have to comment on this creationist howler: " In fact, the retina is an immensely complex organ, comparable (if not exceeding) in complexity to the most sophisticated super-computer man has ever built".
Horse manure! The retina is a simple structure of stacked neurons, just repeated a bajillion times. The creationist canard above was probably one of those "read a science article but didn't understand it" moments that are so common for creationists -- in this case, reading that the data processing VOLUME of the retina is freaking huge, and cranks through as many bits of information as a supercomputer, but that's *NOT* the same as it being as *complex* as a supercomputer. A fiber-optic data cable transmits even more data faster than the retina, but it's still just a long strand of glass and isn't "complex". And biological systems are *great* at taking simple structures and replicating them literally millions or billions of times over. That's not "complexity" or "design", that's mindless repetition.
I really wish creationists would try to *learn* something about science, biology, and living things before they attempted to babble about them or "instruct" biologists on what they're allegedly "overlooking"...