Concerning the on-going discussion.... Science has to have a naturalistic base. The alternative would be to admit supernaturalistic data. Science can not, by definition, validate supernatural phenomena. I find that many people are under the impression that natural selection, somehow, implies randomness. If this was the take-home lesson from one’s biology courses, then, (1) the teacher did not understand natural selection, (2) one missed the point. Natural selection is the antithesis of randomness. In fact, the non-randomness of natural selection appears to give some people a sense of teleologic consequence associated with common descent. Hence, to some, there appears to be a purpose. Of course, man is the pinnacle of this “creation”. The fossil record appears discontinuous because of the conditions necessary to preservation, not because of a flaw in the theory of common descent. Natural selection would get along fine without any reference to the fossil record. That we have a fossil record is just icing on the cake. Also, any reference to punctuated equilibrium as a means to bolster an argument against natural selection is unfounded. Punctuated equilibrium is a theory of gradualism and in no way invalidates common descent. Irreducible complexity is insufferably anachronistic and amounts to a “biochemical Paleyism”. The major fallacy of irreducible complexity is inferring that the current utility of a given biologic feature explains why the feature evolved. For example, the homeotic gene complex is involved in specifying the pattern of segmentation in insects and assists with the proper development of the vertebrate hindbrain. The homeotic gene complex is highly conserved and did not originally evolve to regulate vertebrate hindbrain development. The complex is a consequence of co-optation by natural selection to regulate one aspect of vertebrate development. Additionally, the flagella of microorganisms, a favorite example with many who advocate “Intelligent Design” and irreducible complexity, has secretory functions in many bacteria and is not, solely, irreducibly, a mechanical, “designed”, means of motility. Also, where does one draw the line with irreducible complexity? At the level of the organ? The protein level? The DNA level? Flagella are highly variable concerning the number of proteins that constitute their makeup. Some microorganisms have 27 proteins that make a complete functioning flagellum, some have as many as 44 proteins for a functioning flagellum. Obviously, flagella protein numbers are not conserved. What would be the minimum “irreducible” number of proteins? This might be a question that could be investigated by “creation science”. However, if one does a Google Scholar search for all the “intelligent design” papers that are published in peer-reviewed journals one will be hard pressed to find one. “Creation science” apologists talk the talk, they do not walk the walk. As a side note. What creator is inferred by “creation science”? What if “creation science” had a logical foundation and its confirmed observations (facts) resulted in a theory of the origin of the universe that supported an origin based on the Great Turtle myth, not Judeo-Christian myth? Would any of the “creation science” proponents accept the result? There’s my feelings on the subject, Dave Gary