Articles never get you anywhere someone as stupid as “you noobs”; thats the last time I’ll use the word stupid.

I will just explain it in the best way I can, This most probably won’t be successful. But as simply as I’m going to put it, “Irreducible Complexity” is a complete misunderstanding or ignorance of evolution. By god believers hoping to bring scientific bases to their belief. There was never anything half there.. or incomplete. It started very simple but very complete. Then it changes and builds my casual and inevitable miss replications, either good or horrible. This is caused by nothing much to environmental pressures. Eyes only started as light sensing cells… and I’m not getting into that.

Abiogenesis experiments don’t show much and couldn’t.. but is does show a change and that is evolution. The experiments have intelligent people replicating real environments. Maybe or not that environment was created by a god. The intelligence that was behind the experiments has nothing to do with proving that it had to be an intelligent design.

Now I would like to see a link from you that explains your specific versions of ID and Irreducible Complexity. If I got you wrong I would like to correct myself.

Discovery Institute and their Evolution News? Please!

David Berlinski? Sorry, his Ph.D in philosophy does not impress me. Doing many peer reviewed scientific articles lately? Hmm, looks lot not too many.
www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=submitSearchQuery&query=David%20Berlinski&orderBy=date&orderDir=DESC&searchBy=author&searchType=all

Michael Denton, the former former Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute? That same group again….

David Springer, aka DaveScot of www.uncommondescent.com? Not much of a biological science background there, and blogging with an avowed Discovery Institute shill?

And is this the same John Davison who can’t seem to get his “semi-meiotic hypothesis” tested because the scientific community is against him? Doesn’t sound too creditable to me.
www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000639-p-2.html

And regarding your LOL’ing on irreducible complexity, why not give me even 1 peer reviewed research paper published in a scientific journal (no Discovery Institute).

I leave off with the Dover trial, where the court found that “Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.”

Got any more pseudo-science hackery? Oh, wait, I know, insult me! Yes, ME! Don’t forget to call me stupid. Oh, and assume my political affiliation too. And insult it.

Guess you already knew how to do that though.

Hah! Well this would demonstrate that you are ignorant, dishonest or both. Evidently you haven’t heard of David Berlinski, Michael Denton, David Springer, or John Davison, to name just a few agnostic ID proponents. You see, what you need to learn is that ID is simply the modest notion that design is empirically detectable in biological systems. So it seems that you’ve bought into the party line drivel of your political ideologues and conflated the science with it’s possible implications.

In fact I do have an opinion about the insignificant Wedge document (of one man – Phillip Johnson). You can find out all about it here:

www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/discovery_institute_s_wedge_document_how.html

www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349

Irreducible Complexity is “pseudo-scientific”??? LOL! How bout you detail for me the published research which has confirmed how either a direct, or indirect Darwinian pathway has led to the formation of irreducible molecular machinery. Mkay? Just-So stories and wishful speculations will not be counted. Got that? Write that down. In the meantime, I will make the logical inference to a design blueprint (or front-loaded algorithm) when I encounter specified complex cellular machinery which phD’s in Engineering and Biochemistry can’t figure out. Mkay?

Tell you what, I’ll register an account here when you present something other than strawmen and regurgitated party-line nonsense, for me to refute.

Regarding your “friends”, I think you’re inventing them to help your side.

Done your research? Is that so? So then, you’re a supporter of the Discovery Institute? Have an opinion on the “Wedge Document”? You’re a supporter of the pseudo-scientific concept of “irreducible complexity”?

Maybe you need to up up a book yourself, kid. And why not register an account here, speaking of straw men. Shows you’re not just a troll.