Instinct in biology is simply emotionally driven behavior. It's automatic. Instinct in human's has another aspect, that is simply fast thinking. The answer already exists in the person's mind.
"I strongly suspect any serious inquiry on how "software" arises from evolutionary processes would tend to support the central tenets of Intelligent Design."Softwear is a creation of the mind that model's nature's instructions. Here's an example of a tree with fractal design, that can modeled with a simple program. Note to create an accurate program, the real parameters, such as sunlight intensity and direction, inherent growth rate, and energy balance must be taken into account
As I said...I'm still waiting for evolutionists to produce a half-plausible explaination for the development of "instinct" with some passing awareness of information theory.
Go ahead and try to find it.
A rather dogmatic answer for someone so keen on empirical evidence. How do you design an empirical test to demonstrate the existence of human "thinking," test its "normal" "speed" in humans and then detect its operation in animal "instinctive" behavior? Some things cannot yet be measured empirically and until they can be, they need to be left in the area of "scientifically not fully explicable." Philosophy and religion offer explanations. All of those philosophical and religious explanations may be false and there may be a measurable empirical way to offer an empirical scientific explanation for the behavior some day. But that day has not yet arrived and until it does, when you jump in an explain animal instinct as superfast human "thinking" (which really comes close to explaining human "thinking" as merely superslow animal instinct) you are doing philosophy, not empirical science.
So, since you demand empirical evidence for ID's theory, how about some empirical evidence for your dogmatic claims about what animal instinct truly "is"? We're waiting.
See, you have a problem that we don't. We recognize the validity of both philosophy/religion explanations and empirical scientific explanations. We even believe that the two are complementary and should be integrated. So we can study the best empirical data and scientific explanatory models, recognizing that they explain much but not all of reality, and then work also with philosophy and religion. But you want to restrict explanation to scientific empiricism. If you do that, you should be very silent a lot of the time, e.g., on what animal instinct "really" is. Unless, of course you can offer us measurable evidence for your "fast human thinking = slow animal instinct" claim.
We're waiting