"Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life."http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
The above is not science talk. "Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information..."
What does this mean? I have sat here trying to parse the above paragraph and all I can get out of it is this, if I paraphrase.
"Wow, hey lookie, a coded message. I must be coded because we can't read it. Who else could do that but some intelligent designer dude of no specific type but who is still way cool. And look at this here biology textbook I got at the used book store dated 1949. It doesn't have any laws in it that apply, so biology must be wrong! We got us symbols, and they are in a sequence, and it goes without saying or without researching that this must be some mysterious but kindly intelligent designer because I can't imagine any other source, even a natural one, because besides that would be inconvenient. And by plausible explanation I mean anything that disagrees with what I hope is true. And we won't bother mentioning the results of our research in the area, but we're pretty sure it couldn't have happened any other way than what we really really really hope it did, so there! And my neighbor peered at this so it's been peer reviewed. Take that, science fawns!"
Here is an abstract from an actual scientific paper. The first one I found when I googled "peer reviewed scientific paper DNA"
"The WRKY transcription factors function in plant growth and development, and response to the biotic and abiotic stresses. Although many studies have focused on the functional identification of the WRKY transcription factors, much less is known about molecular phylogenetic and global expression analysis of the complete WRKY family in maize. In this study, we identified 136 WRKY proteins coded by 119 genes in the B73 inbred line from the complete genome and named them in an orderly manner. Then, a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of five species was performed to explore the origin and evolutionary patterns of these WRKY genes, and the result showed that gene duplication is the major driving force for the origin of new groups and subgroups and functional divergence during evolution. Chromosomal location analysis of maize WRKY genes indicated that 20 gene clusters are distributed unevenly in the genome. Microarray-based expression analysis has revealed that 131 WRKY transcripts encoded by 116 genes may participate in the regulation of maize growth and development. Among them, 102 transcripts are stably expressed with a coefficient of variation (CV) value of <15%. The remaining 29 transcripts produced by 25 WRKY genes with the CV value of >15% are further analysed to discover new organ- or tissue-specific genes. In addition, microarray analyses of transcriptional responses to drought stress and fungal infection showed that maize WRKY proteins are involved in stress responses. All these results contribute to a deep probing into the roles of WRKY transcription factors in maize growth and development and stress tolerance."
Notice that even those of us who do not know all the technical terms can understand the gist of what they are saying. Notice things like specific numbers and specific values and specific outcomes. Notice the lack of useless words like "meaningful" and how they successfully avoided giving the outcome some deeper meaning. It's just the facts, ma'am. And nothing else. Nothing in "quotes" and nothing generic. And this is just the abstract. They go into much more detail if you want to read the whole paper. And there are hundreds of papers like this released every single frickin' day. How many intel design "papers" are released a year. If it's over a dozen I'd be surprised.
I know that making stuff up is hard, but your guys need to be more prolific if they are going to make a dent in our knowledge base; i.e., make it smaller. So instead of futile arguments with a bunch of atheists, I suggest you go cheerlead your pack of Intel Design researchers and urge them on. Tell them you have a feeling about golgi apparatus, that they look a lot like something that was photoshopped, so it must be intelligently designed. They need your help, dude.