Replies

Just because the theory of evolution has holes it cannot be rejected. Consider it incomplete, like many other scientific theories.

It doesn't have to be rejected. But evidence shouldn't be studied as a means to an end. Otherwise, the evidence will lead in the direction presupposed every time.

Intelligent Design is a fancy way of saying, “Gee, I don’t understand. It must be magic.”

That statement is exactly the condescending attitude I'm referring to. Maybe it's not that they don't understand it. Maybe because of the holes they simply CHOOSE to reject it, or simply explore other areas. Maybe in their minds ID makes more sense than evolution. If they have the same credentials it makes them no less intelligent!

The study posted above provides a link between protozoan and metazoan organisms. Animal fossils appear quite suddenly during the "Cambrian Explosion" and thus far, there is not much information about where the basic body plan of all those animals comes from. Now there's a significant hint that part of this basic plan, a receptor signalling pathway, was present in select protozoans before the explosion.

How is this of interest for those studying ID?

That statement is exactly the condescending attitude I'm referring to. Maybe it's not that they don't understand it. Maybe because of the holes they simply CHOOSE to reject it, or simply explore other areas. Maybe in their minds ID makes more sense than evolution. If they have the same credentials it makes them no less intelligent!

I really don’t mean to be condescending, I am just pointing out a fact: ID is not within the realms of science.

I suggest that you read “Darwin’s Black Box” by Behe and “Mere Creation” By Dembski. The men who wrote these are apparently very intelligent and knowledgeable in their fields. They have obviously confronted scientific facts that current theories cannot explain, so they invoke “The Designer”. But by introducing an outside force, an intelligent designer, they have stepped out of the bounds of science. It may feel better to believe in this ID, but feeling good is not very scientific.

Spend some time in examining Dembski’s “Explanatory Filter”. If you can’t see that this is a “god of the gaps” solution, try entering with the filter with some data, but pretend that you have no more knowledge then what was available 100 years ago. You will find a great number of things falling through to ID, but if you reenter the filter with today’s knowledge, you stop at laws.

Amazing how the “god of the gaps” gets smaller everyday.