Hi everyone - I was quite interested to read your replies, and tonight I will reply in part to some of the points to which I am able to reply directly. Others I will try to get to later this week.

First to Basho at #134. Please provide debunking.

Charles at #136. The link to uncommon descent was so that you could view the video about the flagellum. The video says nothing about Darwin, ID, evolution, irreducible complexity etc. My point about the video was simply in regard to the general complexity of what is going on in the production of a bacterial flagellum. To me such complexity cannot come about from the Darwinian model. Also, I am well aware of the popular usage of the term “theory” as well as the scientific usage. So, I would say the Darwinian model is not a theory in the scientific sense of the word.

Lynn B. at #139. My mind is not closed to a naturalistic explanation if you can come up with one. I just think the Darwinian model is not the right one.

Charles at #140. I will get back to you later this week after I peruse the articles on the link you sent me. Thanks for the link.

Spiny Norman at #141. What I meant was that if there were an alternative naturalistic explanation, then ID would not be scientific. Creationism is not scientific (unless and until God makes an appearance).

Basho at #142. You’re confusing micro-evolution with macro-evolution. At the end of the day, it’s still a bed bug.

Charles at #143. I didn’t realize I would get all those replies. I actually went to sleep after I posted my comment. I have a day job and I have to get to sleep at a decent hour.

Salamantis at #152. None of what you mentioned about rabbits and genetic material supports the Darwinian model. I can hypothesize an intelligent designer who did all in that a particular step-wise procedure and you cannot contradict me. By the same token, the nanotechnology inside the cell is so unbelievably futuristic that it is hard to believe that it happened according to the Darwinian model. Also, Salamantis, a lot can happen in 3 1/2 billion years, but the Cambrian explosion happened only 530 million years ago, and so there is precious little time after then for everything to have happened the way it did by way of the Darwinian model. Moreover, a lot of what happened goes back to the earliest cell. Why would that earliest of cells have just about everything in place for things to turn out the way they did? As for the fossil record, it clearly does not support the Darwinian model, and that was the reason early paleontologists dissented from it, and it was the reason Jay Gould had to invent punctuated equilibrium to explain away the contradiction posed by the fossil record. Finally, your statement about common ancestry between humans and great apes in no way supports that model. (You should know that we are also have 25% of the same genes as a banana; that proves nothing.) You have to show how it happened, not that there is some kind of relationship, and you cannot show how it happened. As for your statement about “impugning evolution by slagging AGW” is to miss my point. I do not reject evolution per se, rather I reject the Darwinian model, and I reject it for the same reason I reject AGW. They fail as scientific theories.

jaunte at #160. Thank you for the information on Popper. I will look further into that.

Sharmuta at #161. Before Behe and before Dembski, there was Michael Denton. His book, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” is an amazing work. Indeed, according to Professor Behe, it was that book which impelled him ultimately to reject the Darwinian model. That book, even though it was written some 24 years ago, is still relevant today.

Docjay