Kind of sums up how the entire global scientific community feels about ID.
are you sure about that?
before epigenetics was published in science journals, the entire scientific community didn't believe it.
but that isn'[t true either because geneticists suspected epigenetics for decades.
i don't think your quote is quite accurate.
what a scientist publishes and what is on his back burner might be 2 entirely different things.
do you really believe a scientist would openly admit "hey, this looks designed"?
when you start using engineering terms and programming models to explain molecular behavior, you have passed the realm of chemical laws.
i'm going to lay this right on the line.
we will never find the truth when we deal with agendas.
koonin used the word miracle in regards to abiogenesis.
was he referring to a godlike miracle?
no, he was referring to the infinitesimal impossibilities of it.
science goes out of its way to prevent words like this, i'm amazed that koonin uttered it.
when questioned about this, koonin replied creationists are going to use whatever they can, so let them.
gradualists are in the same boat, they just can't let go of their views, probably because it might imply a god.
most of the tenets of neodarwinism are flat out wrong, they have been outright overturned or have been replaced by a more complex version.
the fossil record is not a record of gradual change, but of stasis interspersed with major changes.
of course, none of this points to god or ID, but it does show the sorry state of affairs regarding evolution.