but then Behind the Wheel . . . (which Martin claims is actually about driving. Riiiiiiight)

Okay, bon bon, but see, my watch is complex, and obviously, someone intelligent designed it.

runs

but see, my watch is complex, and obviously, someone intelligent designed it.

It is pink?

You thinking god as Barbie, or god as Hello Kitty?

Speaking of science: Our future is in his hands...

(someone cut his bangs too short!)

Okay, this:

This is total BS-- they ARE asking for actual historical narratives, or they're not at all convinced by the mountains of data accumulated to show how and why a certain trait could have evolved. It's gobbledygook.

And the 'constantly changing the finish line,' are answers I get. Thanks to you both (and Jess's wakas, which I hope her OB can find for her).

So an example (from the Dembski blog entry) of this unconvinced-by-mountains of data is when he says this?...

**The one thing new here is that Orr looks to the type three secretory system (TTSS) as a possible evolutionary precursor for the bacterial flagellum. Our side has pretty well handled this objection (see Behe’s contribution to my coedited collection Debating Design with Cambridge University Press as well as my response to Ken Miller titled “Still Spinning Just Fine“). The problem with looking to the TTSS as an evolutionary precursor of the bacterial flagellum (leaving aside that the best evidence points to the TTSS “devolving” from the flagellum rather than evolving into it) is that it is so much simpler than the flagellum. Thus, in merely pointing to the TTSS as a possible evolutionary precursor, one has not offered anything like a detailed Darwinian pathway to the flagellum.

Is 'detailed Darwinian pathway,' a Discovery Institute-ism?

eta...

bon bon, would Bob Bob agree with Nutty's assessment of Dembski's rhetorical skills?

You thinking god as Barbie, or god as Hello Kitty?

I, for one, welcome our new mouthless overlord.

Is 'detailed Darwinian pathway,' a Discovery Institute-ism?

I believe so, since the word "Darwinian" used in this way (and it's cousin "Darwinist") is a DI-coined term. By making the pro-evolution side sound like they too are part of an activist cabal, ID makes itself sound more legitimate in comparison.

The reason ID proponents love to talk about the flagellum is because the fossil record is spottier for single-celled invertebrates than it is for, say, horses or primates. (Due to the facts that they are (a) very small (b) don't have bones and (c) are a lot older. The fact that we have any evidence that single-celled invertebrates existed before last week is pretty amazing when you consider the conditions that have to exist in order to preserve a record of one that we can find.) So it's easy to point to them as examples and say "Ahhhh, but where are the pre-flagellates with underdeveloped wavy arm things?" This is the kind of rhetoric Dembski is referring to when he says "Our side has pretty well handled this objection." (And historically, when biology comes back after a few years of research and says "Okay, here's that missing link you asked about, right here in the evolutionary timeline where we expected it" the ID strategy has been to turn around and say "Gotcha suckers! Now you've got TWO gaps to fill! Muahaha!" Only they phrase it "detailed Darwinian pathway")

In conclusion: why, if I have gained no weight during my first trimester, do none of my pants fit? In what universe was that intelligently designed? I demand a do-over, and this time, I want to be designed so pregnant women can eat brie and sip Fernet.

I want to be designed so pregnant women can eat brie and sip Fernet.

Of course, you could just move to Europe...