It is comments like this that display the true intelligence behind the design of cell division, respiration, and even photosynthesis. Why the non-believers persist in ignorance is beyond understanding.
Get your asbestos underwear on!
I have seen such comments launch a flame-fest in the past. :)
It takes a lot of faith to be an evolutionist. (my fuel to the fire)
At a gross level the idea of a designer is inherently plausible -- we as humans can understand how a designer might have come up with the things we can observe. At finer levels one can also see how randomness could play a role in the process. We can also understand ways in which randomness and design could both play roles in what we see. The "reverse engineering" aspects of this article are addressing that basic point.
Why the non-believers persist in ignorance is beyond understanding.
That's a pretty sticky statement, though. There are plenty of processes that really are explainable as random and/or non-directed events.
One can hypothesize that the "problem of life" belongs within that group, and that's what the theory of evolution basically does. The question is whether it should be so included.
The underlying issue is a philosophical one: is it scientifically plausible to a priori assume that life is wholly explainable in strictly naturalistic terms? Put another way, is it scientifically plausible to simply rule out the possibility of "intervention" from some external source? This is the current "scientific standard" for the problem of life.
It appears that some folks have an almost ideological devotion to the "current standard," in the sense that their opposition to the idea of "intervention" seems to have roots that are not so much scientific, as an unwillingness to confront a different possibility. For some, I'd go so far as to say they're emotionally opposed to suggestions that God might actually play a role in something.
At any rate, it seems that there are a number of folks who will not admit even the inherent plausibility of a design approach. The interesting thing there is, those who deny the inherent plausibility of design, often argue against the idea by asserting that their design choices would have been much different -- which essentially validates the claim that "design" is inherently plausible.
That is not to say that those who hold to the current scientific standard are entirely wrong to ignore the idea that intervention might have occurred: some of those who argue against evolution do so very poorly indeed, which lends a bad odor to those whose objections are more respectable.
Nor am I going to claim that, because design is inherently plausible, it must be the correct explanation -- that is not a logically sound conclusion. In order to arrive at proof of design, one must find some method by which to discriminate between design and random circumstance.
I don't know, but there are always folks who, through ignorance, remain non-believers of what has been repeatedly demonstrated, both in practice and through theoretical analysis -- the fact that evolutionary processes can produce vast amounts of complexity and results that are so elegant that they look as if they were the work of a clever engineer, even though they're not.
Even so, many people remain ignorant of this fact and continue to naively believe that only intelligent planning can produce complexity and intricate processes.