Image via Wikipedia
"[B]y default, most biologists work within a Darwinian framework and simply assume what cannot be demonstrated. Unfortunately this can lead to the understandable but nonetheless corrosive intellectual habit of forgetting the difference between what is assumed and what demonstrated." -- Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, p. 9 (Free Press, 2007).I'm just finishing up listening to Behe's The Edge of Evolution. Behe is an evolutionist who affirms common ancestry and advocates scientific evidence for intelligent design. An honest, open discussion of the issue is, unfortunately, impossible, because neo-darwinists are closed to the idea that random mutation/natural selection may be an insufficient to produce intricate cell circuitry and the wonderful, rich, complex functional designs that characterize life on earth. They start with the insistence that it is, and go from there -- hence their propensity to confuse the possibility that something may have happened a certain way with the assumption that it did, and the assumption that it did with a demonstration that it did. A good example is listening to Dawkins describe how the intricate function of a wing may have developed -- one darn hop after another. Hop and jump, hop and jump long enough and presto! a Mercedes in your driveway.
Reasonable people have long since concluded it is reasonable to believe there is something more going on here than mindless, purposeless, adirectional processes.
For what looks to be opposing views, see below.