Arikay: thank you for clarifying the whole Hovind issue. You know, I always wondered why evolutionists always direct their attacks at Hovind and take him to be some sort of elected creationist spokesman, especially since a majority of creationists that I personally know have never even heard of Hovind.
I may be wrong, but I think it was Kerkut himself who coined the term. He distinguished between the "general theory of evolution" (what some creationists call "macroevolution") and the "special theory of evolution" (what some creationists call "microevolution").
I do lament that many creationists often fall back on the argument that, because the organism is still of the same basic classification, this means that even if something had happened that it would be irrelevant. Perhaps what they are attempting to say is that the limits of the basic "kind" (or baramin, as some more technically minded creationists have come to call it, from the hebrew for "created kind") have not been transgressed, therefore lending no credence to "macroevolution". I, personally, do not think that this is a very good argument, and I would probably hit myself in the forehead with the largest book I could find (again...) if I caught myself actually arguing along that line. While the magnitude of the change can be made an issue, the cause and type of change is far more important (though some may not agree with that sentiment).
I'm not certain about IC (irreducible complexity, I believe, just in case some of the newer people in this thread are unfamiliar with such abbreviation) being "killed," as you eloquently phrased it. It certainly seems important, if one is to assert that a given feature arose as a result of evolution, that truly viable predecessors have existed. I don't think that IC is necessarily an argument from incredulity, as some have stated, any more than it is an argument from incredulity to express sincere doubts about the Greek myth of Icarus.
I don't know that I really got a simple claim of IC out of the article, though. Perhaps I misunderstood it myself (I'm obviously not a technical expert), but I thought that it was asserting that the trait did not arise by a random mutation after all, which they supported several ways, such as the experiment in which the very same trait was obtained in a laboratory in a mere nine days, as well as the lack of stop codons in the antisense strand (keep in mind that I'm not looking at the article as I write this, so it's just from memory and I could easily be mistaken about these points actually being in the article).
In conclusion, Arikay, I would like to thank you for your clarity, honesty, and integrity. It is always helpful in the search for truth if everyone is clear, straightforward, and honest. I know there have been people on both sides of this debate who have been somewhat remiss in one or more of these things. After reading some of the things said by one party or the other, it is always refreshing to find people who strive to hold to these traits. Thank you, Arikay, and the others here as well.
