Valerie, you’re not reading what I wrote: you and Behe are ignoring the NATURE of the complexity. It doesn’t resemble intelligently-designed objects at all.
To see the nature of the complexity, you’d have to get into the actual evidence, not some hearsay like “Whoa, it’s really complex!”
Can you grasp that there are different KINDS of complexity (pun intended)?
Please don’t make claims about
when you’ve never bothered to look at the complexity for yourself. Words will never describe it sufficiently.
My point is that it doesn’t.
Science isn’t about arguing and accepting; it’s about testing hypotheses. If IDcreationism had any validity, those who “accept” it should be far more productive than the rest of us.
This is yet another day without anyone starting a creationist pharma or oil exploration company.
This is yet another day without a creationist Christian college or university putting millions of dollars into actual research that would show whether creationism “models what is actually happening.”
Science is much more about doing than about arguing and persuading. Why is creationist doing (scientific productivity) virtually nonexistent?