So, we have to assume that the good professor who wrote this article is of the Darwinian mind given that he is in the evolution department.
I only last week, watched a video on intelligent design, not wanting to take it on it's face. I have always been skeptical about the theory of evolution.
I am no scientist, but I am not sure how one can make the leap to say that intelligent design is done, based soley on the biology of the secretory function of the bacterial flagellum. It does show that another function exists, but ID is a very new science in terms of discovery, and I think that it's sole purpose or functions are not yet known. I don't think we can dismiss it altogether just yet.
When you watch the function of the bacterial flagellum, it's make-up being much like a machine with independent parts of a whole, it is astounding that it would develop simply by evolutionary processes. Perhaps it did, but I have my doubts.
But were you staying at a Holiday Inn?
That's actually not true. ID has been around for a very long time. It's a new name for an old, tired idea.
That's actually not true. ID has been around for a very long time. It's a new name for an old, tired idea.
So new that it doesn't have even one peer reviewed paper in the National Library of Medicine on the subject.
Now that's leading edge.
Maybe someday the Discovery Institute will hire some scientists to do actual research on ID, rather than hunt for ways to criticize evolution, and they'll publish a paper.
Waiting,.... Waiting .....
ID is not a science, by any measure. Its even less scientific than alchemy.