“Oh, Michael Behe happens to be a Catholic, therefore we don’t have listen to him on the science.” Well that’s poppycock.
Would it, in fact, be enlightening if you were to sit a Darwinist and a Darwin skeptic together for an extended period of time to talk and see what really lies at the bottom of their disagreement?
Reproduction is the most fundamental characteristic of life. We see it happen everywhere, so we may feel there is nothing “unnatural” about it.
The contrast between the evolutionary sterility of Lenski’s unintelligent Darwinian evolution and the evolutionary potency of Arnold, Smith, and Winter’s intelligent evolution is striking.
If you had an opportunity to confound your Darwinist friends, but a limited amount of time, what challenge would you put to them?