It seems that you believe we cannot trust anyone even if we have access to the data that they used. So why should I trust your conclusions when you provide none of the data that you used to draw those conclusions?

The definition used by the Discovery Institute for Irreducible Complexity is a biological organ or process that could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.

The Discovery Institute has no scientists and certainly no biologists on its board of directors or its senior fellows. There are lots of lawyers, businessmen, and political people on there though. Not the kind of people I would turn to for any research into biology. It fits with their methodology of using political muscle and persuasion to get ID taught in schools as if it were a valid theory.

I have not found any research done to support the idea that certain biological systems were designed by a higher power. Nor have I found any research done to show a system to be an IC system. Perhaps you could point me to papers by research scientists that supports ID or IC. You have been looking into it for longer than I have.

I wasn't remarking about the validity of ID except to say that the changes in the standards for a scientific theory required to categorize ID as a VALID theory would also make Astrology a valid theory. That is an admission from the poster boy of ID, not me. I simply remarked that I consider those changes to be a lowering of the standards.


You assume that I have done no investigation of ID without any investigation of my knowledge of ID. It seems you are caught in your own condemnation.