Well, anybody can give an explanation, the point being the ID explanation has more evidence -- meaning the explanations as to how the flagellum evolved etc. have nothing to back them up whereas ID can at least argue from the experience of design.
So you agree with Meyers OLD EARTH THEORY arguments? It is really a change to see all the former YEC'ers come around to accepting that the earth is billions of years old.
Really? What is this evidence for design? All I have ever seen are arguments from incredulity that claim that things could not have evolved. When presented with possible evolutionary paths, IDers typically just repeat their argument from incredulity rather than providing actual evidence for design. BTW, arguments from the experience of design are irrelevant here. Nobody has observed the design of a biological system. The experience of design comes from a knowledge of the history of design in a system. We don't have knowledge of the history of design in the biological systems under question. To claim that experience is evidence for design is assuming the conclusion.
Really? What is this evidence for design? All I have ever seen are arguments from incredulity that claim that things could not have evolved. When presented with possible evolutionary paths, IDers typically just repeat their argument from incredulity rather than providing actual evidence for design. BTW, arguments from the experience of design are irrelevant here. Nobody has observed the design of a biological system. The experience of design comes from a knowledge of the history of design in a system. We don't have knowledge of the history of design in the biological systems under question. To claim that experience is evidence for design is assuming the conclusion.