[js1138]

Recent research shows that "junk DNA" does, indeed, have previously unsuspected functions. Although that research was done in a Darwinian framework, its results came as a complete surprise to people trying to ask Darwinian research questions. The fact that "junk DNA" is not junk has emerged not because of evolutionary theory but in spite of it. On the other hand, people asking research questions in an ID framework would presumably have been looking for the functions of non-coding regions of DNA all along, and we might now know considerably more about them.

Interesting that science finds things that it is not looking for, while ID stands on the sidelines finding nothing.

Science is driven by data and data is accumulated by people who have the curiosity and methodology to collect it.

It will be interesting to see what research programs result from the assumption that there are phenomena that cannot result from natural causes. Wouldn't an honest research program entertain the null hypothesis and search for natural causes. And how would that research differ from what is being done under the umbrella paradigm of evolution?

[cookcounty]

"Science is driven by data and data is accumulated by people who have the curiosity and methodology [and huge grants and funding] to collect it."

You left out one critical element.