paper against evolution, for intelligent design

FliesOnly<< Now, call me silly, but does that not say that predictions of a unicorn designer are ok with you, as long as these predictions are based on the "unicorness" of the designer?>>One more time. Flagellar expert David DeRosier acknowledges the flagellum resembles a machine designed by humans. ( Cell 93: 17-20). There is an obvious connection between intelligent engineers and things like machines. There is no connection between machines and pink fairies, unicorns, and a host of other ridiculous entities the ID critics have come up with as supposedly analogous to an intelligent designer unless you envision such entities as intelligent engineers, in which case, their pinkishness, fairyishness, and unicornishness are all irrelevant. Viewing molecular machines as intelligently designed can lead to logical predictions and testable hypotheses. I don't believe anyone can make logical predictions or produce testable hypotheses based on pinkishness, fairyishness, or unicornishness but if someone can do it more power to them.

FlieOnly<< I have yet to see a testable hypothesis come out of ID that cannot be falsified in about five minutes. Maybe you and I have a different perspective on what we consider to be useful (or for that matter, what we consider to be a hypothesis). >>Please provide an example of a testable ID hypothesis that has been proven false. I suspect you are talking about creationist hypotheses.