[Nebullis]

I guess what I was mainly interested in was the process and how ID was used in his research.

It seems you didn't get much of an idea of that process. A claim of design use in research is too broad to be useful. In some sense we all do that. It has little to do with Intelligent Design theory.

[Alamo-Girl]

Hi, Nebullis! The following statement left me scratching my head. Could you elaborate please?

A claim of design use in research is too broad to be useful. In some sense we all do that. It has little to do with Intelligent Design theory.

[MHGinTN]

I have a wierd request: at 10:57 est I was on my porch (in East Tennessee) and saw a strange series of meteor-like displays in the East-Northeast. The first object streaked across and went 'poofed'; less than a minute later a second object streaked across the night sky, then appeared to be 'hit' by something and explode(?), then a little more light streak downward from that burst; approximately one minute later a third meteor-like object streaked across the sky and went 'poof'. Does anyone know if the military was taking satellite target practice tonight or was a satellite scheduled to 'fall' out of orbit? The pattern appeared to be roughly in a 'string of streaks' from overhead to East-northeast with the pattern running east-northeast to the north. Any thoughts, Anyone?

[CalConservative]

A claim of design use in research is too broad to be useful. In some sense we all do that.

Not at all. Even as a simple geologist I can see that using an engineered design specification in reverse engineering a biological process is different from assuming the process or function is derived from random mutations.

Does this prove design? Maybe or maybe not. Does it improve the efficiency of the research process? I would contend that it does. Occam's Razor definitely applies.

[gore3000]

A claim of design use in research is too broad to be useful. In some sense we all do that. It has little to do with Intelligent Design theory.

Oh really? And how can one use design to discover things when those things are supposedly random? How can randomness have order? How can science discover order in biology and every other scientific field if nature is the result of random events?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

That's OK. I was struggling to keep up anyway.

[foghornleghorn]

Yes, and the reason we "all" use a little preumption of design in our research is something called the Natural Law.