.....I have chosen to take WistahPats advice and move this discussion to the general board, I hope you don't mind. I hope you and your family are well. Wistah, I will have a response to you A.S.A.P. Hey AAB, sorry it took me so long to get back to you but as I said in a previous post; my life just got to busy and my priorities had to take precedence. Thank you for your patience. I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think it was ever in question that I was a Ã¢â‚¬Å“creationistÃ¢â‚¬, you know as well as others here what my worldview is, of course I believe the God of the Bible to be the Ã¢â‚¬Å“designerÃ¢â‚¬. That in no way takes anything away from the ToID. As IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve said before we all have BiasÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ and they may be relevant in some ways, but they do not make the specific theories we happen to support wrong; that depends on the evidence. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know that I am Ã¢â‚¬Å“entrancedÃ¢â‚¬ by it as much as I feel it is extremely relevant to the current debate. The fact that it is a Ã¢â‚¬Å“young theoryÃ¢â‚¬ in no way detracts from that relevance. I will be delving into this a bit more with my response to Wistahpat, which you are of course, more than welcome to weigh in on. Well, as we both know evolution is a rather broad term and the Ã¢â‚¬Å“principlesÃ¢â‚¬ that guide it seem to me to be just as broad and Ã¢â‚¬Å“selectivelyÃ¢â‚¬ defined. Take for instance when I talk about micro and macro evolution. Now I thought that this was a rather general use of terms that everyone sort of agreed on, but you have told me in the past that you define these terms in a different manner entirely. So maybe the definition of the principles we are talking about may not even be in agreement let alone how they work. I will admit that being a zoologist, you certainly have far more training than I on the mechanisms of evolution but you told me yourself after you had your Ã¢â‚¬Å“epiphanyÃ¢â‚¬ that you felt that you were deceived by many of the Ã¢â‚¬Å“dogmasÃ¢â‚¬ that exist within the scientific community regarding evolution and it is not as if I havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t done any research on the matter. Do you feel that your worldview colors your view of biology in any way? Yes IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m very familiar with the Ã¢â‚¬Å“God of the gapsÃ¢â‚¬ analogy, I just think we disagree on how many Ã¢â‚¬Å“gapsÃ¢â‚¬ exist, and thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s ok. I really do admire the apparent honesty of your recent change of heart regarding I.D and I have enjoyed reading your blog. How close are you to publishing something more in relation to your Ã¢â‚¬Å“homeostatic symbiosisÃ¢â‚¬ theory? DembskiÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s research is in no way meant to stand on itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s own, in fact he will be the first to tell you that he created his theory in response to Michael BeheÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s theory of Irreducible Complexity, in order to supply some type of a working model to test it. HavenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t you done the same thing at your blog? You presented a hypothesis and then used many different sources to lend support to it, some not having anything to do with Ã¢â‚¬Å“the study of natureÃ¢â‚¬. Using the term Complex specified Information, in no way ignores the science that has been assembled to date, it simply offers us a new way of looking at it. Crick himself has often said that he has to constantly remind himself that the things he sees in the microscope have not bee designed: Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. What Mad Pursuit (1988) pp.138-139 What should we trust then? I look at the assemblage of existing science and see that there are viable alternatives to the governing theories of biological evolution, not all of them mind you, but certainly some. On this we may disagree but please donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t tell me that my position is futile and that I should simply knuckle under and accept whatever the scientific community chooses to tell me. Did it ever occur to you the time in which Asa Gray lived? Back then it was thought that the cell was nothing more than a lump of albuminous combination of carbon, yet now we know that it is an amazingly complex system of many even smaller machines, much like a factory. I think Asa Gray would find immense comfort for his worldview in that. Ok what field terminology explains the existence of complex information within living systems? I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think the whole Ã¢â‚¬Å“faith healersÃ¢â‚¬ comment was necessary AAB, the folks that have pioneered the I.D movement can hardly be equated in such a fashion. I understand that these types of comments are made by many proponents of evolution in order to Ã¢â‚¬Å“downplayÃ¢â‚¬ the significance of the theory and keep the debate framed as Ã¢â‚¬Å“science vs. the BibleÃ¢â‚¬ but do we really have to resort to such Ã¢â‚¬Å“straw menÃ¢â‚¬? How have I attempted to deceive anybody? ArenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t the results of Stanley MillerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s experiment documented to this day in many text books distributed throughout our public school system? Why; if they are not trying to explain the origin of life on earth? Is it not posited by the same textbooks that life spontaneously generated itself in ancient oceans? Now this may not be an integral part of the ToE but it is certainly inferred and is worthy of discussion. I do not understand why you have chosen the ad hominem attack of accusing me of being some sort of deceiver, we have had enough interaction to this point that I would have thought you would be able to better gage my character and that we at least had some modicum of respect for one and other, even if we do disagree. Take care.