I wanted to comment on this, but it’s pretty far down on the blog so I’ll make it here. First of all, it doesn’t refute anything. Discovering a new species is a far cry from discovering a missing link. It’s like this: Suppose that until now nobody knew a salamander existed. Then, suddenly, we discover a salamander. Evolutionists would go crazy, thinking they’ve found some missing link that “proves” evolution, when really all they did was discover a species that had never been discovered before. It’s the same thing as Tiktaalik.

“Next, a discovery about hormones and receptors further discredits the idea of “irreducible complexity.”

This is another flawed argument. Imagine this: I can say “hormones and receptors are an example of irreducible complexity” and then you will say, “but we’ve discovered that it is actually not an example of irreducible complexity, and therefore irreducible complexity is wrong.” What’s wrong with this argument? I don’t think I need to spell it out.

It would be great if it was that simple to refute Intelligent Design, but it isn’t that simple.

And by the way, Science is working because of this competition of ideas between evolution and ID, not because of Evolutionary Dogma. If everyone believed evolution was true, nobody would even care about these discoveries.