"

PNRS, human. PNRS, human. PNRS>human. The only problem is that your analogy at this point no longer correlates to the real-world thing it was supposed to analogize. It isn't that we have detected PNRS's twice and found they were generated by humans, therefore the third PNRS we detect is probably human. Rather, the real world knowledge that we have around how life developed on Earth would describe an analogy that says we detected several PNRS's, and they all turned out to be generated by natural phenomenon. Somewhere in the ID article, it says that ID is not meant to replace (insert laundry list of evolutionary bits and pieces), and that those bits and pieces have already been shown scientifically to be part of a natural process. Those are PNRS's that were proven to be generated by an odd arrangement of pulsars, not alien lifeforms. The flagella on bacteria is just another PNRS in this analogy. And while we may not scientifically be able to explain them yet, we have several other complex PNRS's that we know were created naturally, so rather than leap to the conclusion that ""a designer created flagella"", science says ""no further information known"". There's a concept that feels like you aren't grasping here: science is patient in the face of an unknown. science deals with the unknown all the time. But just because something is unknown doesn't mean science finds it neccessary to leap to a conclusion or redefine itself. natural science has defined itself as empirical, observable, repeatable knowledge. And that's worked pretty good for the last couple of centuries, even though when the first natural scientists came about, they knew practically nothing, and everything was unknown from a rigorous, scientific point of view. If one were to look at ID from a purely scientific point of view and ignore all the political intent, ID is so impatient ""to know"" that it discards centuries of scientific practices to find some answer based on subjective measures like ""legitimate possibility"" or ""probable explanation"". Science is far too patient to give up so quickly in the face of an unknown natural phenomenon.  "