""The blog owner has been notified about your comment! It will appear on the blog once it has been reviewed." I get it. That's why there's only pro-magic comments on this thread." Bobxxx, You realize that all of us get that message. Your three comments have been posted, as well as your comments from the last time you posted. Isn't it about time you came up with an apology to Orrin for your rude commentary? ------ Now, as to ID vs Darwin, I have said it before, there is no place in science for faith, even the faith in the infallibility of the currently accepted hypothesis. To cling doggedly to Darwinism is in itself deeply unscientific. You risk the same fate that befell the disciples of Netwonian physics when Einsteinian relativity kicked over their world. Do try to be a bit less dismissive of the data. However, ID requires faith in a Creator, and therefore cannot be argued in a scientific forum. But neither can Darwinism be defended in a faith forum. They are apples and oranges. To even do an 'either-or' comparison is to risk committing a category error. Just as choas theory and quantum indeterminacy limits what is knowable and predictable in the physical world, it leaves room for God to operate. Sure, mutations happen. But what controls what information is encoded by the new gene? The flagellum motor could easily have been a mutation where God wrote the code to make it all work, without leaving gross traces of his work. He is a subtle Artist, and nothing he ever does can be proven or disproven. Lastly, while we can conduct experiments about mutations, we cannot command God to perform ID just for us. Again, that is another part of his subtlty Bobxxx, you really have to be a touch more tolerant of your fellow man. Sure, you may dislike what you view as 'ignorance' on the part of others, but what does it really hurt? There is no move to eliminate the study of Darwinism, just to broaden the horizons of various students. Chill, man. Bill