If the acceptability of a theory depends on the agreement it enjoys, the acceptance process is political, not scientific.

The good professor is out of town, but promises a comment when he returns. I, on the other hand, have no idea whether I'm done.

Science is faith in repeatable results. Theory must be backed by observation and confirmed by proven metrics. A hypothesis is presented and its predictions are tested by experimentation and the observed results either prove or disprove it.

The theory of Evolution has compelling evidence to support it. Paleontology,physics and field observation confirm its basic assumptions and until Intelligent Design reaches the same level of evidence it will not be able to compete with scientific dogma. Fairness is a legal concept not a scientific one.

At one time the Ptolemaic system was dogma. It answered questions about the observed movement of the planets well. Better instrumentation, better observation and better mathematics destroyed it, Intelligent Design has to meet that level of proof to overturn The theory of Evolution.

There have been many now accepted scientific ideas that were once derided, plate tectonics, a sun centered solar system and evolution to name a few. The arguments for Intelligent Design lack depth and evidence, what it has is an argument with the scientific method.

If Intelligent Design is to compete in the scientific arena it must play by scientific rules, statistical anomalies are not enough for it to replace the Theory of Evolution. If research produces a preponderance of evidence in favor of Intelligent Design, the academic consensus will crumble and Darwin will join Jon Baptist Lemark in scientific obscurity.

"...The sequence of molecules in DNA (the genetic code) determines the sequence of molecules in proteins. Furthermore, without DNA there cannot be RNA, and without RNA there cannot be DNA. And without either DNA or RNA there cannot be proteins, and without proteins there cannot be DNA or RNA. They're all mutually dependent upon each other for existence!

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.

Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic progam and higly complex biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells. The cell's genetic code and biological machinery will use and direct the raw materials, entering the cell from the environment, into forming more cells. The question for evolutionists and naturalists is how did the cell or life come about when there was no directing mechanism in Nature. "
"...
The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet! "

http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/28-01-2008/103680-synthetic_life%20-0

Yes, Pravda. Their agreement with Satan stipulates that they must publish something that's true every 10 billion words.

I am shocked, shocked I say, to see Pravda get something that wrong, isn't it the Russian word for truth? As a regular reader I will fire of a strongly worded note in protest. What about viruses, prions and prokaryotes they seem to be doing fine without nuclei, cell membranes or even DNA. I look forward to a new class of jumbo jets coming out of the next tornado that hits Oklahoma.