REC
Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006
|
I see Bio-Complexity has posted their 3rd! (review) article of 2014, by David Snoke. As in "Behe and Snoke." Champagne corks popping!!!!
What is odd to me is that it seemed to get 0 fanfare, from UD, DI news, ENV.... at least that I saw or can find by google.
True, the subject is genuinely embarrassing: "Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design." Snoke went to a conference that featured Systems Biology, declares it springs from ID.
But why the silence?
Quote | ..in 2001 I wrote: A theory of design can in principle be predictive and quantitative. For example, a computer chip manufacturer, which takes apart a chip made by a rival company, proceeds on the assumption that the circuits are well designed; this does not lead them to end their investigation, but rather, drives their study of the chip. The good-design assumption leads to specific predictions and applications, e.g., the prediction that it is unlikely to find wires which take up metal and space but serve no purpose, so that there should be few wires which are dead ends, with the application that studying any particular wire is likely to be useful. A bad-design assumption (e.g. that the chip maker made many random circuits and then just picked out the ones that worked) would give very different predictions. |
Hmm.... so "bad design" isn't a religious statement. The ID design inference is, and has been, to good design only.
Lots of "there is no junk" and the that the language "design or function or mechanism"="Designed Functions and God's Machines."
|