[Chiapet]

In this "science" article scribe Gefter boldly claims that there are no reasons for Patents.

I'm not getting the connection you're making there. Please explain?

[bvw]

Why can I say that Inquirer has taken a stance against Patents?

The essayist writes:

But that is not the main reason it is not science. The main reason is, that ID does not actually explain anything. When we ask, "Why is the world the way it is?" it answers, "Because it was designed that way." The world is the way it is because it is that way. That might be the furthest from a useful, satisfactory explanation you can get.

By saying that examining Design is not useful and not satisfactory the Inquirer diminishes the value of any Patented Design. For by that logic, "Who cares?" about any design. It is simply unuseful and unsatisfactory, so they claim, to study Design as design.

There is NO value in reverse engineering, none in copying and incorporating the best of other designs. Instead, we engineers and scientists should (1) throw random bits of this and that into a pile a wait for natural selection to evolve it into a useful product, and (2) develop estoric fantastic equations describing the dynamics of junk in such piles because such high mathematics is grandiose and beautiful.

What a program for progress they propose, what a way to pay the bills!