>.... If Loren's "signature" feature
>would in fact "resist natural explanation," then it would plainly be quite
>functional, in terms of the specific function which Walter requested!
Loren's idea did not meet an essential feature of my challenge -- that is,
that life be designed for survival. Loren, in effect, claimed that
non-functional designs, designs that do nothing for survival, would be good
design. That is a complete turn-around for evolutionists, and shows the
remarkable plasticity of their arguments. First they claimed that
"imperfect" but highly functional design was evidence against a designer.
Now they claim the designer should have used worthless, non-functional
designs that do nothing for survival.
-- Walter ReMine