New Scientist has this article about the latest attempt by ID proponents to pretend they care about science:
This is my second attempt to engage in person with scientists at Biologic. At the institute’s other facility in nearby Fremont, researchers work at benches lined with fume hoods, incubators and microscopes – a typical scene in this up-and-coming biotech hub. Most of them there proved just as reluctant to speak with a New Scientist reporter.
The reticence cloaks an unorthodox agenda. “We are the first ones doing what we might call lab science in intelligent design,” says George Weber, the only one of Biologic’s four directors who would speak openly with me. “The objective is to challenge the scientific community on naturalism.” Weber is not a scientist but a retired professor of business and administration at the Presbyterian Whitworth College in Spokane, Washington. He heads the Spokane chapter of Reasonstobelieve.org, a Christian organisation that seeks to challenge Darwinism.
Apparently Weber should have kept his mouth shut:
Last week I learned that following his communication with New Scientist, Weber has left the board of the Biologic Institute. Douglas Axe, the lab’s senior researcher and spokesman, told me in an email that Weber “was found to have seriously misunderstood the purpose of Biologic and to have misrepresented it”. Axe’s portrayal of the Biologic Institute’s purpose excludes religious connotation. He says that the lab’s main objective “is to show that the design perspective can lead to better science”, although he allows that the Biologic Institute will “contribute substantially to the scientific case for intelligent design”.
One wonders what all the secrecy is about. It might be nice to know, if only in a vague sort of way, what sort of research they could possibly be doing from a design perspective. It’s not like they could be worried about other labs beating them to important results. After all, every other lab is laboring under naturalistic blinders that will prevent them from carrying out genuinely important research in biology.
One suspects that what will emerge from the lab is the sort of milquetoast, run-of-the-mill research that fills the back pages of second-tier journals. They’ll produce results like, “Point mutations in the obscurity gene, which codes for the protein esotericase, leads to a catastrophic loss of function.” Then the shills at the DI will shamelessly peddle this as cutting-edge research in support of ID. Such results clearly show that esotericase couldn’t possibly have evolved, right? The conscienceless lickspittles at the various ID blogs will wield it with comical indignation the next time a scientist points out that there is no research in support of ID.
The rest of the article is worth reading, though I think it’s a bit too soft on the ID folks. Go have a look!