Intelligent Design vs Evolution

[Ultimeaciax]

I have a debate this week. I'm on the Evolution side. Any good resources, especially for debunking the watchmaker analogy?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ILikeDrugs]

There is only three more days left in the week. I think you're a little late in doing your research. Just forfeit.

 

[afugazzi]

??? What university would lead a serious debate on evolution vs ID Anyway, I'm guessing you don't have time to read Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, which certainly sounds appropriate for what you want... given time constraints, why not use the old standby: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

 

[El31]

http://www.therevealer.org/archives/timeless_002161.php

 

[Geekchick921]

I could not take part in this debate. I believe the term for what I believe in is "theistic evolution" and that, basically, God exists, He/She created the universe, as well as all of the biological processes within it, including evolution. Makes the most sense to me.

 

[El31]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irVqVKdiohE&feature=related

make sure to read the description below it. This is a parody.

 

[VTBuc]

I could not take part in this debate. I believe the term for what I believe in is "theistic evolution" and that, basically, God exists, He/She created the universe, as well as all of the biological processes within it, including evolution. Makes the most sense to me.

Me too! Most folks at church are stunned when they find out I'm a Biology major and believe in evolution...and folks in my Biology classes are stunned when they see my cross with Psalm 27 tattooed on my upper arm.

 

[Geekchick921]

Me too! Most folks at church are stunned when they find out I'm a Biology major and believe in evolution...and folks in my Biology classes are stunned when they see my cross with Psalm 27 tattooed on my upper arm.

I think people are just way too wrapped up in arguing with each other to see that they don't HAVE to be mutually exclusive, you know? I was taught evolution in Catholic school as well.

 

[schrizto]

Look up Ken Miller. He's a Brown professor who is very involved in the debate between ID and evolution. Though he is a very religious man, he is a strong supporter of evolution and I remember he had a good argument for one of ID's main beefs with evolution that involved a mousetrap.

 

[VTBuc]

I think people are just way too wrapped up in arguing with each other to see that they don't HAVE to be mutually exclusive, you know? I was taught evolution in Catholic school as well.

Yup. I catch a LOT of flack from my parents for "believing" in Evolution. Daddy's a Southern Baptist minister, so it's not too surprising haha. I don't see why it's become such a heated topic. There's way more important things to worry about than what happened millions vs. thousands of years ago.

 

[El31]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW_2lLG9EZM&feature=related

This is part of that ken miller interview.

 

[DrSmooth]

Try googling evolution vs. intelligent design. Also check out strongatheism.net and infidels.org for arguments and debate transcripts.

 

[ShinyDome19]

Just take a petri dish in after spreading it with E-coli...then drop a Antibiotic disc on the plate, incubate it for a day, then come back... have them explain how its not natural selection for that one-two colonies that remain near the disc... i used to love to hear the stuff that my former hardcore religous students came up with.

 

[Lokhtar]

Do you go to Bob Jones University? Outside of that, having a ID vs. Evolution debate is like your chemistry department hosting a Alchemy vs. Chemistry debate, or your Physics department holding a Gravity vs. Fairies-pulling-you-down debate.

 

[jdwmont]

One of my student hosts for a med school interview told me that about half the class seemed not to believe in evolution. Decided that school wasn't the best fit for me

 

[Lokhtar]

Haha that's scary.

 

[Myuu]

I think people are just way too wrapped up in arguing with each other to see that they don't HAVE to be mutually exclusive, you know? I was taught evolution in Catholic school as well.

Fo' real.

Yup. I catch a LOT of flack from my parents for "believing" in Evolution. Daddy's a Southern Baptist minister, so it's not too surprising haha. I don't see why it's become such a heated topic. There's way more important things to worry about than what happened millions vs. thousands of years ago.

Yeah, I get this a lot from one of my parents, too.

Do you go to Bob Jones University? Outside of that, having a ID vs. Evolution debate is like your chemistry department hosting a Alchemy vs. Chemistry debate, or your Physics department holding a Gravity vs. Fairies-pulling-you-down debate.

Gravity is only a theory!

 

[Parts Unknown]

I have a debate this week. I'm on the Evolution side. Any good resources, especially for debunking the watchmaker analogy?

Search the archive of Talk Origins.

Intelligent Design is essentially a slicked up version of the God Of The Gaps argument. In fact, you could just state that verbatim, show your junk, and walk out of the room after some high-fives.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

One of my student hosts for a med school interview told me that about half the class seemed not to believe in evolution. Decided that school wasn't the best fit for me

loma linda?

 

[CarlATHF]

PBS put out a wonderful documentary about the ID vs. Evolution debate in a high school which eventually went to court. It includes interviews with Dr. Miller and other professors of Biology. It also includes the (acted-out) testimony of Dr. Behe, a well known ID supporter and professor of Biology at Lehigh University.

Very interesting program if you've got an hour or so to kill.

 

[Lokhtar]

Yea, I think the whole thing is on youtube. I watched on there last year.

 

[KoopaT89]

Look up Ken Miller. He's a Brown professor who is very involved in the debate between ID and evolution. Though he is a very religious man, he is a strong supporter of evolution and I remember he had a good argument for one of ID's main beefs with evolution that involved a mousetrap.

He's come to our school, sat in on a few of his discussions. Great guy. His argument is pretty convincing, and he's still a devout Catholic.

 

[neurosnap]

I think people are just way too wrapped up in arguing with each other to see that they don't HAVE to be mutually exclusive, you know? I was taught evolution in Catholic school as well.

The problem is falsifying your theory, which is impossible. If God started the first chain of events that led to humans, but doesn't interact at all with the universe, then what's the point in believing he/she/it exists? Or do you think evolution is just God being "mysterious"? To me, if you believe in evolution, you don't believe in Genesis, which is a book in the Bible; at this point you must realize that you are picking and choosing parts of the Bible to suit your needs, which is wishful thinking at best.

So, while it is true you can believe in a god and evolution, it's very hard to reconcile the two and still be realistic about what's happening in the universe.

 

[CarlATHF]

So, while it is true you can believe in a god and evolution, it's very hard to reconcile the two and still be realistic about what's happening in the universe.

No reconciliation is necessary in my opinion. The two fields of study are simply different perspectives on the question: What's the purpose of life?

 

[VTBuc]

The problem is falsifying your theory, which is impossible. If God started the first chain of events that led to humans, but doesn't interact at all with the universe, then what's the point in believing he/she/it exists? Or do you think evolution is just God being "mysterious"? To me, if you believe in evolution, you don't believe in Genesis, which is a book in the Bible; at this point you must realize that you are picking and choosing parts of the Bible to suit your needs, which is wishful thinking at best.

So, while it is true you can believe in a god and evolution, it's very hard to reconcile the two and still be realistic about what's happening in the universe.

Many Christians(myself, included) believe that the Bible is accurate regarding spiritual matters but was not meant to be a history nor scientific text. The most important thing in the Bible are the words written in red and Jesus never said anything about evolution nor intelligent design. The Bible tells me how to live, how to treat people, and what happens to my soul when my body is gone...not about lobe-finned fish or microraptor.

I think God used evolution as it is incredibly adaptive by definition. Evolution is the best mechanism to make sure life persists and I think that is why God uses it. The world is ever changing and his works need to adapt.

 

[Lokhtar]

The problem is falsifying your theory, which is impossible.

Well, falsifying God is impossible. Falsifying evolution is not.

All belief in God is not falsifiable, so I don't see how you can only use it as a criticism for people who believe in God and accept evolution.

Plus, I have a problem with the literal business - Genesis gives two different accounts of creation like 3 pages apart.

 

[NickNaylor]

There is no debate. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It is, at best, a philosophical idea based on scientific principles (kind of). Intelligent design as a legitimate scientific principle is argued by people who have no idea what science is. I say this as a religious man, by the way.

 

[Marcus Brody]

Fiction vs. Truth. respectively.

there is no debate because it's apples and oranges. one is based on reason, one- by definition of "faith"- is NOT based on reason. the two can't be pitted against each other.

 

[DrSmooth]

Many Christians(myself, included) believe that the Bible is accurate regarding spiritual matters but was not meant to be a history nor scientific text. The most important thing in the Bible are the words written in red and Jesus never said anything about evolution nor intelligent design. The Bible tells me how to live, how to treat people, and what happens to my soul when my body is gone...not about lobe-finned fish or microraptor.

I think God used evolution as it is incredibly adaptive by definition. Evolution is the best mechanism to make sure life persists and I think that is why God uses it. The world is ever changing and his works need to adapt.

This is getting way off topic, but the problem with your dichotomy is that the Bible does not distinguish between history, science, and spirituality. It places spirituality in a historical (and scientific) context. Since the history (and science) is flawed, the spirituality piece is flawed as well. An example is intercessory prayer. Answers to prayer by necessity interfere with the "laws" of nature. Thus, the question of prayer becomes a scientific question, which is relatively easy to test (and nullify) by scientific means. Honestly evaluating the science and history of the Christian faith, the "spirituality" eventually dies the death of a thousand caveats. But there are some justifiable non-scientific reasons to hold on to the faith, if that is one's desire, such as social and emotional.

 

[Old Grunt]

I have a debate this week. I'm on the Evolution side. Any good resources, especially for debunking the watchmaker analogy?

You could always just point out that ID does not fit within the parameters of the scientific method and, therefore, is not a scientific theory.

Call it philosophy if you want, but it's not science.

 

[VTBuc]

This is getting way off topic, but the problem with your dichotomy is that the Bible does not distinguish between history, science, and spirituality. It places spirituality in a historical (and scientific) context. Since the history (and science) is flawed, the spirituality piece is flawed as well. An example is intercessory prayer. Answers to prayer by necessity interfere with the "laws" of nature. Thus, the question of prayer becomes a scientific question, which is relatively easy to test (and nullify) by scientific means. Honestly evaluating the science and history of the Christian faith, the "spirituality" eventually dies the death of a thousand caveats. But there are some justifiable non-scientific reasons to hold on to the faith, if that is one's desire, such as social and emotional.

The word "dichotomy" means something entirely different than you think it means. And ironically enough your reply created one.

 

[Old Grunt]

Many Christians(myself, included) believe that the Bible is accurate regarding spiritual matters but was not meant to be a history nor scientific text. The most important thing in the Bible are the words written in red and Jesus never said anything about evolution nor intelligent design. The Bible tells me how to live, how to treat people, and what happens to my soul when my body is gone...not about lobe-finned fish or microraptor.

I think God used evolution as it is incredibly adaptive by definition. Evolution is the best mechanism to make sure life persists and I think that is why God uses it. The world is ever changing and his works need to adapt.

There is a name for that: christian apologetics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologists

And the ranks include C.S. Lewis, etc.

It's fine for a personal belief. However, it can't be introduced into formal science since it relies on the works of a supernatural power that can not be falsified.

That's the rub with I.D. It is a completely unworkable theory scientifically speaking.

That was also the opinion of the federal judge in the Dover case.

 

[medschoolfamily]

I don't know of many Christians holding that the 6 day creation narrative in Genesis is 6 24 hours periods of time. We believe that it's symbolic and just shows the process of desiging the world in which we live. As a theology/pre-med major, I spent quite a bit of time on this topic from both sides and found alot more evidence favoring ID. The one biological mechanism that stands out to me is ATP Synthase (especially the proton pump). Evolutionary theories constantly state that mutations favoring survival persist while mutations that serve no function and that do not enhance survival do not remain. The proton pump has many subunits and moving parts seen nowhere else on the cellular level, so that would mean that all these parts would have had to come together at the same time and fit perfectly and work immediately. If the subunits came together one at a time, there would be no functional use for them and they would disintegrate and not evolve any further. I hope you see what I'm trying to say here, it's very hard to put into a semi-short post. Also I still haven't heard a convincing argument for how matter existed without someone or something creating it, it's just something I cannot wrap my brain around. There ultimately has to be an unmoved mover.

Anyway, Catholicism teaches that we are all a part of creation and that it is ongoing, meaning that the creation narrative in the Bible is not finished, meaning that evolution has been and is at play in the world. We just hold that it was God's design to use evolution and place a rational soul in man at the time of his "appearance" in the evolutionary process. Of course there are varying degrees of belief in evolution in the Catholic Church and among other Christians, but it goes to show that Intelligent design and evolution can mutually exist and actually benefit eachother. As Einstein said, "The more I study science, the more I believe in God," and I have to say that I feel the same way.


P.S. I don't want anyone to feel like I'm trashing you're ideas or beliefs and I am not meaning to start a debate, just offering another point of view for the OP.

 

[VTBuc]

There is a name for that: christian apologetics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologists

And the ranks include C.S. Lewis, etc.

It's fine for a personal belief. However, it can't be introduced into formal science since it relies on the works of a supernatural power that can not be falsified.

That's the rub with I.D. It is a completely unworkable theory scientifically speaking.

That was also the opinion of the federal judge in the Dover case.

Right. I think you'll find very few people with beliefs similar to mine that believe that ID or anything relating to God ought to be taught in the classroom. It's not science, cannot be tested...doesn't belong in education.

 

[Old Grunt]

Right. I think you'll find very few people with beliefs similar to mine that believe that ID or anything relating to God ought to be taught in the classroom. It's not science, cannot be tested...doesn't belong in education.

Do you mean ought not be taught in a classroom?

A lot of people feel that way. As mentioned above, Ken Miller is an excellent example of such a person.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

I don't know of many Christians holding that the 6 day creation narrative in Genesis is 6 24 hours periods of time. We believe that it's symbolic and just shows the process of desiging the world in which we live. As a theology/pre-med major, I spent quite a bit of time on this topic from both sides and found alot more evidence favoring ID. The one biological mechanism that stands out to me is ATP Synthase (especially the proton pump). Evolutionary theories constantly state that mutations favoring survival persist while mutations that serve no function and that do not enhance survival do not remain. The proton pump has many subunits and moving parts seen nowhere else on the cellular level, so that would mean that all these parts would have had to come together at the same time and fit perfectly and work immediately. If the subunits came together one at a time, there would be no functional use for them and they would disintegrate and not evolve any further. I hope you see what I'm trying to say here, it's very hard to put into a semi-short post. Also I still haven't heard a convincing argument for how matter existed without someone or something creating it, it's just something I cannot wrap my brain around. There ultimately has to be an unmoved mover.

Anyway, Catholicism teaches that we are all a part of creation and that it is ongoing, meaning that the creation narrative in the Bible is not finished, meaning that evolution has been and is at play in the world. We just hold that it was God's design to use evolution and place a rational soul in man at the time of his "appearance" in the evolutionary process. Of course there are varying degrees of belief in evolution in the Catholic Church and among other Christians, but it goes to show that Intelligent design and evolution can mutually exist and actually benefit eachother. As Einstein said, "The more I study science, the more I believe in God," and I have to say that I feel the same way.

untrue, as long as it is no detriment you can accumulate as many mutations as you want - as evidenced by things like eye color diversity. your paradigm on the ATPsynthetase is also flawed in that it assumes these subunits existed in their current form to somehow be randomly "assembled"

 

[7starmantis]

I find it interesting that so many people buy into this lie. No, not the lie of creationism. No, not the lie of evolution. But the lie that the two are in contradiction with each other. What the people in this thread are calling evolution is not Darwinian evolution. Darwin wrote the Origin of Species, not the Origin of Life. He did not in fact attempt to even address the origin of life itself. Those who say so should get their heads out of Richard Dawkins anus and read for themselves. What the world knew of biology in 1859 isn't exactly the same as what we know now.

Darwinism in and of itself (as a theory or fact depending more on your politics sadly than anything else) begins after life began. Sure many people try to stretch Darwinian theory to include the origins of life but its lacking in any real source. I have no problem fully accepting the idea of evolution and even Darwinian evolution as defined by Darwin himself. However, to apply this theory to the beginnings of life is unreasonable and unfounded. If neither "creationists" nor "evolutionists" really know how life actually began, why the emotional reactions and arguments? The real problem is the beliefs that run with most "evolutionists" that also run in opposition with things like religion and "creationism" and thus ID. I find the idea of ID no more preposterous than "seeding" or "crystal theory".

Evolution strictly defined is in fact, a fact. (yes, I said fact twice). Change over time doesn't really address the beginnings of life. Why people have such a problem with people offering suggestions or asking questions about something no one has yet been able to figure out or prove (the beginning of life) is beyond me. Why people have such emotional and physical responses to faith leads me to think its less about science and proof and more about a clash of beliefs and world views.

 

[298609]

just a thought/question after reading tons of bs-ing threads on here...

do those of you in medical school think that the amount of people who seem to hate/seriously dislike religion (that is, act in a derogatory and/or condescending way towards it) in med school populations is represented by the amt of those who feel that way on SDN?

i'm just wondering...

 

[RogueUnicorn]

who is acting derogatorily towards religion here?

 

[DrSmooth]

The word "dichotomy" means something entirely different than you think it means. And ironically enough your reply created one.

A dichotomy is splitting something that is whole into separate parts. It's difficult to legitimately salvage traditional Christian spirituality when the history and science of the Christian scriptures is unreliable. Attempts to do so are often the result of social and emotional pressures.

 

[298609]

who is acting derogatorily towards religion here?

i didn't say anyone was...here. i was just asking a question that had to do with people's opinions on religion, which obviously would be a reason for people to visit this thread.

 

[medschoolfamily]

untrue, as long as it is no detriment you can accumulate as many mutations as you want - as evidenced by things like eye color diversity. your paradigm on the ATPsynthetase is also flawed in that it assumes these subunits existed in their current form to somehow be randomly "assembled"

ATP synthetase is a little more complex than a mutation to a gene coding for eumelanin production. I know what you're saying, but I don't think it's that simple. Another good example is the flagellum and the rotor that drives it. The first time I saw that mechanism used to argue for intelligent design was in the documentary "Unlocking the Mystery of Life." It is a great documentary and does a better job of explaining what I'm trying to say. If you have a chance, you should take a peak at it, pretty sure it's on youtube too. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong by comparing eye color to ATP synthetase, I just think it's not that simple, but I'm no expert.

I'm also not assuming that these subunits existed before. I actually don't think they exist anywhere else, correct me if I'm wrong. It just exhibits the unliklihood of all these mutations taking place to create the life-sustaining parts that happened to come together to form ATP synthetase pump. Again, the aforementioned documentary does a great job of explaining the unliklihood of the chance formation of such a mechanism.

 

[Old Grunt]

just a thought/question after reading tons of bs-ing threads on here...

do those of you in medical school think that the amount of people who seem to hate/seriously dislike religion (that is, act in a derogatory and/or condescending way towards it) in med school populations is represented by the amt of those who feel that way on SDN?

i'm just wondering...

The only formal training you will receive about religion will be to be overwhelmingly accommodating towards patient's religious and personal views, no matter how absurd they are. I doubt you'll ever hear a lecturer tell you to transfuse a Jehovah's Witness against their will.

Among my peers, the issue is hardly discussed. If it is, it's over beers and most people tend to er on the side of respect when it comes to religion.

I think organized religion is a ridiculous man-made institution crooked up to control other people. I am not going to directly say that to someone I know is a devout Episcopalian or whatnot.

 

[Old Grunt]

ATP synthetase is a little more complex than a mutation to a gene coding for eumelanin production. I know what you're saying, but I don't think it's that simple. Another good example is the flagellum and the rotor that drives it. The first time I saw that mechanism used to argue for intelligent design was in the documentary "Unlocking the Mystery of Life." It is a great documentary and does a better job of explaining what I'm trying to say. If you have a chance, you should take a peak at it, pretty sure it's on youtube too. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong by comparing eye color to ATP synthetase, I just think it's not that simple, but I'm no expert.

I'm also not assuming that these subunits existed before. I actually don't think they exist anywhere else, correct me if I'm wrong. It just exhibits the unliklihood of all these mutations taking place to create the life-sustaining parts that happened to come together to form ATP synthetase pump. Again, the aforementioned documentary does a great job of explaining the unliklihood of the chance formation of such a mechanism.

Are you arguing for Behe's lame theory of "irreducible complexity"? If so, be aware that Behe and his theory were absolutely thrashed on the stand at Dover.

In fact, ID was so completely thrashed in the Dover trial, that one of the main founders of the modern ID movement, attorney Phillip Johnson, basically ran up the white flag after the trial.

Ken Miller does a pretty good job of covering the flagellum argument in his lecture at Case Western. You can find it on youtube if you are interested.

 

[VTBuc]

Do you mean ought not be taught in a classroom?

A lot of people feel that way. As mentioned above, Ken Miller is an excellent example of such a person.

I think you misread my post.

BTW, if you are a combat vet(judging by your avatar)..thanks!

 

[VTBuc]

A dichotomy is splitting something that is whole into separate parts. It's difficult to legitimately salvage traditional Christian spirituality when the history and science of the Christian scriptures is unreliable. Attempts to do so are often the result of social and emotional pressures.

A dichotomy is splitting a whole into two parts and saying there is no overlap and that they are exhaustive..not just splitting a whole into parts. What my opinion is that the Genesis account doesn't have to be taken literally but that does not make the spiritual aspect of Christianity false. Your "all-or-nothing" approach is an example of such a dichotomy.

Whether Jesus drank wine or orange soda at the last supper doesn't negate what he said about how to live or treat others or the consequences of his martyrdom on mankind...most would agree what he drank was unimportant and irrelevant. That is similar(an an admitted gross oversimplification) to my beliefs regarding the Bible and the origin of species.

 

[Old Grunt]

I think you misread my post.

Gothca. I actually don't mind ID being taught in the classroom. It could be taught as philosophy or even in a science classroom as a good example of what a theory that is not scientific.

BTW, if you are a combat vet(judging by your avatar)..thanks!

I always feel a little silly when people thank me, but you are welcome.

It was an honor to serve.

Even if I thought my commander in chief was a complete *****.

 

[rockaction]

Evolution, in my opinion, does hurt religious beliefs. For the Christian pro-evolution people, answer me this:

You claim that ~2000-3000 years ago, God revealed himself to man and gave humans his divine revelation. It doesn't matter how you interpret the Bible. But God gave it to man progressively only a couple thousand or so years ago, and this is a path to human salvation and you believe that humans should treasure the Bible as God's revelation.

Anthropologists would say that homo sapiens have been around for at least 100,000 years (by a very conservative estimate). You mean to tell me that for 997,000 years God watched our species indifferently as it died in a horrific, bloody, and savage evolutionary arms race? He waited until then to drop by with the divine intervention? You call this God "loving"? God just watched as our ancestors routinely died at the age of 20 of starvation?

It makes more sense to me why Christians tend to accept creationism over evolution because then we wouldn't have this problem. If you mix Christianity and evolution, you have to deal with these issues.

 

[VTBuc]

Evolution, in my opinion, does hurt religious beliefs. For the Christian pro-evolution people, answer me this:

You claim that ~2000-3000 years ago, God revealed himself to man and gave humans his divine revelation. It doesn't matter how you interpret the Bible. But God gave it to man progressively only a couple thousand or so years ago, and this is a path to human salvation and you believe that humans should treasure the Bible as God's revelation.

Anthropologists would say that homo sapiens have been around for at least 100,000 years (by a very conservative estimate). You mean to tell me that for 997,000 years God watched our species indifferently as it died in a horrific, bloody, and savage evolutionary arms race? He waited until then to drop by with the divine intervention? You call this God "loving"? God just watched as our ancestors routinely died at the age of 20 of starvation?

It makes more sense to me why Christians tend to accept creationism over evolution because then we wouldn't have this problem. If you mix Christianity and evolution, you have to deal with these issues.

This is a good post and something I hadn't considered before. I'm not very good at apologetics, so forgive me if my response is clumsy and inarticulate. My first thought is that just because something isn't recorded, that doesn't mean it did not occur.

Another possibility..and the one I'm leaning towards...is the misconception that God isn't okay with people dying. In the Old Testament, especially, we see God raging wars and directly killing people at some points. If you have read the Old Testament, it's not a stretch of the imagination to picture God just deciding not to jump in and claim His people(the Jews) for quite some time.

I'll probably respond to this again later once I have some more time to think about it.

 

[medschoolfamily]

Are you arguing for Behe's lame theory of "irreducible complexity"? If so, be aware that Behe and his theory were absolutely thrashed on the stand at Dover.

In fact, ID was so completely thrashed in the Dover trial, that one of the main founders of the modern ID movement, attorney Phillip Johnson, basically ran up the white flag after the trial.

Ken Miller does a pretty good job of covering the flagellum argument in his lecture at Case Western. You can find it on youtube if you are interested.

Thanks, I'll take a look at it. I'm not really sold on his "mousetrap" analogy to discredit irreducible complexity though.

It's funny how some people have so much faith in some of these evolutionary processes even though there is no hard proof or evidence of them (a flagellum's parts all serving other functions before coming together to form the flagellum for example). Sounds like other people having faith in something in which there is no hard factual proof of existence