[AndrewC]

"If you are going to teach the Darwinist view that organisms may look like they were designed but weren't, then you have to allow for the possibility that they look like they were designed because they were designed," said Johnson

That is totally unreasonable! It is certain, which means no possibility of the opposite view, that the Darwininian theory of evolution is fact, requiring no proof only evidence. The Darwininian theory states that random is what works, therefore something non-random is unnecessary. Finally, from the logical proof named Occam non-random does not exist do to its superfluous nature making all things non-designed and fully explicable by the Darwininian theory Law.

[Pete]

That is totally unreasonable! It is certain, which means no possibility of the opposite view, that the Darwininian theory of evolution is fact, requiring no proof only evidence.

This is simply untrue. Much of Darwin's work has come to be rejected by scholars and replaced with updated theories.

The Darwininian theory states that random is what works, therefore something non-random is unnecessary.

I point you to Steve Wolfram's newly released "A New Kind of Science" where he concludes that randomness in nature DOES NOT work. Check out Chapter 7.

I have a question, which I ask in all seriousness to those who hold the naturalist view for the origins of life. To what theory to you currently subscribe? I have been looking into this issue recently and it is my understanding that there have been half a dozen or so theories proposed in the last 50 years all of which have fallen out of favor. I am not looking to start a flame war here as I am actually interested in the question presented.

[rwfromkansas]

I am not an evolutionist, but you are flat wrong. Modern evolution is not exactly the same as Darwin's theory. And no, it is not a law, but a theory.