From: Donald Nield (d.nield@auckland.ac.nz)
Date: Thu Sep 25 2003 - 18:36:43 EDT
Steve Petermann wrote:
> Dave Wrote:
> > Where do I find the ID
> > research that has forced a reconsideration of "Darwinism"?
>
> I'm no biologist so a lot in their discussions are over my head but the
> threads on flagellum seem particularly good in delineating the ID vs.
> Darwinism issues. It's been such a long thread they have two with several
> pages:
>
> http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000399.html
>
> http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000415.html
>
> For those who are well versed in this field, if they have an opinion on
> these threads, I'd appreciate hearing it.
>
> Steve Petermann
I am no biologist either, but for what its worth I offer an assessment.
I have followed the postings of Mike Gene (pseudonym) on ARN and ISCID forums
for a couple of years and I have been very impressed by what he has written.
I have gained the impression that if anyone can develop an ID scientific
research program then Mike will be the one to do it. However, he is obviously
not a typical ID proponent of the Johnson-Behe-Dembski variety. You will note
that in this thread (01 August), in response to Yersinia (Nic), Mike writes
‘I am certainly not arguing that “the flagellum is IC, thus it must have been
designed.” '
I think that the discussion is well summarised by Mike's statement (22
August) ‘Insist that the Darwinian evolution of the flagellum is plausible
and I will agree that the level of detail we have today supports this
contention. Insist that the flagellum did evolve by Darwinian evolution and I
will not agree that the level of detail we have today supports this
contention.’
Don Nield
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 25 2003 - 18:35:41 EDT