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?
|..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."