>>And irreducible complexity!<<
I'm not a biologist and have never particularly liked it or enjoyed it - too high of a memorization to understanding ratio for me - I prefer physics and chemistry...
So I can't approach that question from a point of expertise. My gut reaction is that like with chemistry and physics I suspect that development we don't understand is limited by how far man has progressed so far. I was just talking in Freepmail about my experience with God - it didn't include any previously unrevealed information about science.
Since those people with the most accepted accounts of personal experiences with God are not also known for advancing science, I suspect that God generally does not reveal science but leaves it to us to discover.
That's important because microbes (for example) weren't discovered until the 17th century so no matter how sincere the person was in writing down a book of the bible don't include knowledge of modern science - they likely could not have understood the concept of a billion years or atomic theory or DNA. That doesn't impugn them in any way - they were men of their time and place as am I.
It wouldn't surprise me if one of my grandchildren looks up my post and wonders how I could have been ignorant of some discovery that has yet to happen.
Darn, that was long winded - what I meant was just because something looks irreducible doesn't mean it is irreducible.
Irreducible complexity simply put is that one or more entities is required symotaneously, therefor they had to be in existance at all times, not over a happenstance chance of one thing developing and then the other, And this irreducible complexity is everywhere.