For instance, in the last summary paragraph we could easily flip the terms and create (whoops, evolve?) the opposing argument.

“Evolutionists cannot imagine, for example, how the bacterial flagellum could have been created; ergo, they conclude, it was evolved. But saying ‘Evolution did it’ does not explain anything…”

Why can’t we admit that both sides of this discussion come to the table with a preconceived bias, or worldview which filters their interpretation of the evidence. This simply means both sides look at the same fossil or other parts of the natural world but infer different processes were involved.

No one was there when these processes occurred. But, many here now speak as though they know with certainty exactly what happened. Yet the processes even the evolutionist suggests are filled repeatedly with mere metaphysical guesses.

To exhibit the audacity of claiming anything but the evolutionist’s view as ‘science’ or intelligent reeks of an underlining and hidden agenda. Knowing the UNCHANGING NATURE of mankind, I would venture my guess that money, power, and politics within the ‘science’ community contains the real untold story of evolution vs design.