Joined: April 2005
Charlie neatly sums up one of the arguments for intelligent design, which is argument from ignorance. He has used this argument almost exclusively in his discussions on talk.origins and at the Panda's Thumb. The bottom line is that Charlie cannot possibly see how microglia could have arisen to respond to brain injury, and thus invokes an intelligent agent.
If I were you, I wouldn't be bringing up the argument from ignorance. It is the main argument that evolutionists use to defend their theory.
Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false.
Evolutionists routinely claim that since evolution can't be proven not to have occurred, then it must be true. In the same vein evolutionists routinely claim that since ID has not been proven to be true, then it must be false.
For example, would you say that ghosts exist because no one has proven that they don't? Or that the Loch Ness monster exists because no one has been able to prove it doesn't? Or that the Big Bang is false because no one can prove that it's true?
The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. It is not the responsibility of others to prove the claims false. Evolutionists have gotten away with this little charade for too long. I don't have to prove *your* theory false. You have to convince me that it's true to a reasonable degree of certainty.
If you think that the microglial system with all of it's complex structures and processes, all integrated into a system that has a clear purpose, arose by accidental, non-directed processes then it is incumbent upon you to prove it.