Scordova has posted something that caught my attention at UD.
It’s up to ID proponents to demonstrate a few incontrovertible instances where design is uniquely fruitful for biology. Scientists without an inordinate attachment to Darwinian evolution (and there are many, though this fact is not widely advertised) will be only too happy to shift their allegiance if they think that intelligent design is where the interesting problems in biology lie.
Can we say that as there’s been no significant shift in allegiance to Intelligent Design, ID proponents have in fact failed to to demonstrate a few incontrovertible instances where design is uniquely fruitful for biology?
By this definition provided by ID’s own Dr Dembski, ID has failed as a project.
The grand quest never left the dock.
What if organisms instantiate designs that have no functional significance but that nonetheless give biological investigators insight into functional aspects of organisms. Such second-order designs would serve essentially as an “operating manual,” of no use to the organism as such but of use to scientists investigating the organism.
I will watch the thread @ UD with interest. I think it would be the discovery of the century were an “instruction manual” to be found in our genetic heritage. But I am skeptical that it exists if we’ve not even seen the merest hint of it yet.