Quote Originally Posted by TomOfSweden View Post
That whole article is based on accepting his examples, ie "An example of an irreducibly complex cellular system is the bacterial flagellum: a rotary propeller, powered by a flow of acid, that bacteria use to swim. The flagellum requires a number of parts before it works -- a rotor, stator and motor. Furthermore, genetic studies have shown that about 40 different kinds of proteins are needed to produce a working flagellum."

Since Darwins theory takes account of this I don't really see how he manages to draw the conclusions he does. Here's a simple example. A -> B -> C. B dies out, and leaves no trace. We have now no way of knowing how C could evolve the way it did. See, no god needed.
The point here is that Darwins theory does not take this into account, he had absolutely no knowledge of this process. Scientific knowledge in his day saw the cell as a simple and irreducible building block of life. In fact it is a complex biochemical mechanism. The flaggellum is one of the simpler structures in a cell.

If I found a watch in the dessert, no one would think I was crazy if I said a man had made that watch, in fact they would think I was crazy if I told you it was the result of an accidental and random series of events. This is about the level of complexity involved in a flaggelum.

Yet you expect me to walk out into that dessert and find a working factory that is producing thousands of watches and believe that it somehow came about by accident and natural selection. Does this make sense to you?

The division of the RNA looks to me and all molecular biologists I've talked to like magic, (and that's been quite a few). It's staggeringly complex. But from there draw the conclusion that it cannot have evolved by itself is just dumb. All we can do is put it on the list of things we hope to figure out in the future. Us not understanding something cannot be used as evidence for anything.
It is not the division that I am even talking about, but the simple existence of RNA. How did these various chemicals learn to encode so many different things? Not understanding something is also not a reason to reject the only explaanation that offers even a small explanation. The problem with the people who profess evolution is not that they believe in evolution, but they reject the possiblity of Intelligent Design. If they accept it as possible, they might actually be able to prove that it is wrong by devising a test for it. By rejecting ig out of hand they prove my point, that they are not takind a scientific point of view and testing all hypothesies

{QUOTE]And even if I and Darwin are wrong, that's still no case for christianity. All that would mean is that we still don't know. Intelligent design would still be in the pile of maybes. {?QUOTE]

Agreed, but my point has not been to promote Christianity, but to show that evolution is lacking. We need to open the discussion to all possiblities.