Maybe you aren't talking to the right people. I just had dinner last month with a research microbiologist from a relatively large university and he was telling me how he uses design concepts in a predictive capacity for his research work on bacteria. Now I'm a geologist, not a biologist, so some of the in-depth discussion was hard for me to follow, but the gist of it was that he is able to use reverse engineering as you would with any machine that is designed or like software for that matter, and making discoveries that he is able to publish on. Furthermore, he also discussed the design parameters of various bacteria functions and why many of these functions cannot operate without the presence of many (and in the case of some components, up to 50) specialized genes. If any of these genes are missing, that component cannot exist or function. His work has led him to believe that it is impossible to simulaneously evolve 50 specialized genes to give the bacteria this component and there are no intermediate functionalities that could use only some of the genes while the others "evolve' to produce the final function. What is left? Weak arguments for "puncuated equilibrium?"
There is more fascinating stuff (it was a long evening), but I have to admit that I was certainly swayed by the evidence. I would stress that this is not just making claims about design, but actually using an ID approach to making research discoveries.
Another broad claim, but all I have is your assertion that it's so. Where's the beef? Where's an algorithm I can apply to a sequence of numbers, say, and determine whether it was designed or not?
This is not what we would call a research discovery.
Perhaps you could point us to some peer-reviewed papers published by your anonymous contact. In that way, we can judge in what way he or she (as the case may be) actually uses design concepts.
You're lucky to find a biologist who will even discuss the concept. It's rare to find anyone who does work in biology who's even curious about design. It doesn't bring anything to the table.
Divine intervention is another discussion entirely, though. ;)
I just had dinner last month with a research microbiologist from a relatively large university and he was telling me how he uses design concepts in a predictive capacity for his research work on bacteria. Now I'm a geologist, not a biologist, so some of the in-depth discussion was hard for me to follow, but the gist of it was that he is able to use reverse engineering as you would with any machine that is designed or like software for that matter, and making discoveries that he is able to publish on.
But whenever I read a description of some aspect of evolution, invariably the author (even if they're a scientist!) will lapse into the metaphor of writing as if the species was trying to solve a problem and so evolved some functionality.
Random mutation & natural selection is a design process. There's no evidence that there's any person per se behind it all, but it's a design process nonetheless. So analyzing a successful biological system as if someone had designed it is kind of a tautology. (Not that there's anything wrong with tautologies!)
Furthermore, he also discussed the design parameters of various bacteria functions and why many of these functions cannot operate without the presence of many (and in the case of some components, up to 50) specialized genes. If any of these genes are missing, that component cannot exist or function. His work has led him to believe that it is impossible to simulaneously evolve 50 specialized genes to give the bacteria this component and there are no intermediate functionalities that could use only some of the genes while the others "evolve' to produce the final function. What is left? Weak arguments for "puncuated equilibrium?"
The same argument could be made to prove that the modern free market economy must have been consciously designed by someone in charge to work the way it does. But any non-communist understands that economies evolve - even though it's made up of quite intelligent people who would happily try to design whole industries from scratch if they had the power. That should give one pause when considering the implications of Irreducible Complexity.
With the rediscovery of "intelligent design" as it relates to Evolution, I think the "cat is out of the bag" and it's only a matter of time before Darwinism is finally buried.
There are a lot of ostriches out there, though, who call themselves scientists.
All of science was founded on the premises that the universe is intelligently designed and that, with diligent effort, we mere humans can discern at least some of that design. While we have much yet to learn, we have been remarkably successful in this effort.
The Luddites with blinders, it turns out, are the Darwinists, who can see only cold, Godless Material.
Quite true, ID does help in making scientific discoveries. For a long time we were unable to even guess what was the source of cancer. We were misled by the stupid evolutionist inspired theory of 'one gene, one protein, one function'. This theory came to a screeching halt when we definitely proved that a single gene can make dozens of proteins which serve a multitude of functions. With this came the discovery that the genes are nothing more than factories which take orders from the complex DNA which makes 95% of our genome. From this we found that cancer is most often caused by some DNA becoming corrupt and ordering some gene to produce too much protein which in turn indicates to the cell that it needs to reproduce itself when it should not. This both shows the interrelatedness of different parts of an organism and the very close parameters within which it works - a single bad piece of DNA - one in 3 billion, in one single cell - one in 100 trillion, can kill the organism.