Joined: Aug. 2007
I just posted this on the Biologic Website thread at UD
I fear this is going to go the same way as the rest of ID research, because nothing has actually changed. The website looks nice and has a lovely logo (I like ambigrams), but I can still see the same problems that pro-evolution people have been noting for years: it's all about the gaps, not about the theory.
Under the research page, for example, it starts talking about the limits placed upon life, and search spaces, which in the ID literature means 'what can evolution actually do?'. There isn't anything there about what design does, so it's back to the old 'if we can't understand how this was done, it was designed'.
I'm sorry if you've heard that before, but the fact is that ID has been doing that for years and it has not once been successful. This site is more of the same - no one is going to take it seriously because it can be so easily demolished by the same refutations.
Here's what I would take seriously: a page with definitions of information as it is used by working ID researchers, definitions of CSI, and a few simple test examples on, for example, randomly generated and designed text strings. An API for common ID mathematical algorithms and functions would also enable people to get started on the first ID programs and applets.
These would be absolutely irrefutable, because they would actually work, and the worst that opponents would be able to say is that they don't do enough... which will become less of a problem as the research is built upon into more complex methods of analysis.
hasn't shown up yet.
EDIT: to clarify which thread. And because I can, apparently.