[StJacques]

As a followup to my previous post, here are the relevant snippets of the two quotes in question.

From the description of the Post-Doctoral Fellowship position for which Hiroyuki Kurata chairs the search committee:

"In order to elucidate the design principle of a biological system, research is undertaken not only to determine molecular networks of existing living systems, but also to learn how they evolve, since evolution is a key trigger for the emergence of living systems . . ."

And from the abstract of the review of Doyle and Csete's Reverse Engineering of Biological Complexity:

"Advanced technologies and biology have extremely different physical implementations, but they are far more alike in systems-level organization than is widely appreciated. Convergent evolution in both domains produces modular architectures that are composed of elaborate hierarchies of protocols and layers of feedback regulation, are driven by demand for robustness to uncertain environments, and use often imprecise components. This complexity may be largely hidden . . ."

It is from those two quotes that you can see that the very same scientists whose work was lauded at the beginning of this thread make the argument that evolution leads to design. I didn't make that up on my own.

[MacDorcha]

So do you agree or disagree with the author?

Whether or not we support the article is secondary to your support of this person's assertions that you brought forth.

If you support him, and laugh at us for supporting this article, then you miss the purpose of the article.

If you do not support him, but we do, what do you care about his professions in his field? It may be laughable to you for us to support him, but why use his crude and wrong analogies to denounce us?

Either we tout this article and you laugh that we agree with one of your mentors on something or;

We tout this article and you cite the man's contrary (yet bad) work to convince us that he's wrong.

[MacDorcha]

To put it yet another way:

If this author is supposed to have convictions one way or the other in science, why do you care what he says? A true scientist avoids bias.

Even then, however, isn't it marvelous that people with differing ideas can come to different conclussions than your own on the meanings of these findings? It means the facts were presented without a supposition of what they meant!

But I suppose you may be right. We may have to abandon his works, because he is notably an advocate (politican if you will) in a non-political field: science.

His bias would then betray him as one who could not be a scientist, but a seeker of proof for his own ideals.