[VadeRetro]

Inane wave-away. Your Spectator article is not evidence. It's a vague mumble that some "scientists" somewhere, mostly at the un-Discovery Institute in Seattle, think they see evidence in complexity.

Nah!

Irreducible Complexity is consistent with evolution.

Real information theory does not support ID.

I have all the evidence of the last 150 years, as you have supposedly reviewed from my last post. You have mumbles, endlessly repeated no matter how often refuted.

[longshadow]

Your Spectator article is not evidence. It's a vague mumble that some "scientists" somewhere, mostly at the un-Discovery Institute in Seattle, think they see evidence in complexity.

Until they get cross-examined under oath; then the truth comes out, as is reflected in the this quote from the Dover decision regarding the teastimony of Prof. Behe:

On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." (22:22-23 (Behe)).

[emphasis added]

There you have it, sports fans; Prof. Behe admitted under oath that there are no, nada, zero "....peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." Dover will, in time be seen as ID's Waterloo.