Kiss the one ya love. When you post ideas primarily based upon religious tenets (designer, superntural cause) you really deny and ignore anything to be discussed "Scientifically".
Since science is evidence based and experimentally displayed, where youve continually failed is that you present your conclusion as a proof of your very concept.(I know Ive been using that phrase lately but its an engineering fact.
YOU CANNOT come up with anything that remotely smacks of evidence without a large amount of hand waving .
Your use of "complexity" as proof is inane. There is no basis for confusing "Complexity" with evidence of design when complexity is easily seen to be an adaptation of a prior organ or system or even a chemical pathway.
By attempting to avoid being confused with Fundamentalists, you actually draw closer by setting up "rules of engagement ,like complexity or intelligent design sans evidence.
While you claim I default to associating your worldview with religion, none of your colleagues at the DI, deny it(Dr Demski , in his chapter included in "Intelligent Thought)
Started out arguing "proof of Design is on the wy, but only after he started a spiehl on the immorality of "Science without Jesus is immoral"
How do we allow something like that to pass. (I know youve done nicely by just ignoring me when Ive brought those points up from the archives)