Intelligent design should be the obvious inference from the increasing scientific evidences.

However, there’s nothing “obvious” to those who have decided to stick to unproven dogmas in order to keep “unwanted” concepts or ideas from being considered, if they contradict their worldview. There’s no possible serious reasoning between opposite irreconcilable worldview positions, unless there’s open-mindedness and humility on both sides of any debate.

Perhaps that’s a reason why some folks don’t like to associate biological cells with machines. Some researchers have been using terms in their papers that definitely don’t please the Darwinian fundamentalists who want to maintain their academic establishment at any cost. What are they going to do? Establish a list of terms that are not allowed in the publications? Which words should be included in that list? Choreography, orchestration? What else?

See below the opinions of highly respected scientists, NOT ID-friendly, who admit the failure of the Neo-Darwinian main concepts (RV+NS), but still try desperately to find a naturalistic solution to the obvious debacle. I’m sure neither you or I would like to be in their shoes. Specially seeing that their situation gets worse with every new scientific discovery in Biology research. Notice their final evolution-of-the-gaps conclusions. Pathetically hopeless scientific expectations. Really sad.

Dance to the tune of life: biological relativity?

2017 Book by professor Denis Noble

living organisms operate at multiple levels of complexity and must therefore be analysed from a multi-scale, relativistic perspective.

all biological processes operate by means of molecular, cellular and organismal networks.

the interactive nature of these fundamental processes is at the core of biological relativity and, as such, challenges simplified molecular reductionism.

such an integrative view emerges as the necessary consequence of the rigorous application of mathematics to biology.

what emerges is a deeply humane picture of the role of the organism in constraining its chemistry, including its genes, to serve the organism as a whole, especially in the interaction with its social environment.

this humanistic, holistic approach challenges the common gene-centered view held by many in modern biology and culture.

Endorsement:

Jos de Mul, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands

“world-renowned physiologist and systems biologist Denis Noble effectively argues for a fundamental revision of the theory of evolution.  Against the reductionist, gene-centered approach of Neo-Darwinism, which has dominated biology for more than a century, Noble passionately pleas for a more integrated approach.”

Chapter 9, page 248:

I suspect that for many scientists, defending reductionism, including particularly Neo-Darwinism, was a necessity in order to counter the claims of creationist religions or supernatural intelligent design.

Chapter 9, page 254:

In common with many other scientists, I feel embarrassed by the lack of basic philosophical awareness in much of what is written on this matter on behalf of ‘science’.  Whether the authors know it or not, they are in fact speaking not on behalf of science but rather on behalf of an alternative metaphysical viewpoint, and often enough they do not appreciate the need for humility in the face of the deep uncertainties.  To claim to speak to the general public with ‘scientific’ authority about the deepest ‘why’ questions with a false certainty that cannot be justified simply creates problems, it does not solve them.

Chapter 9, page 262:

We have no idea what, if anything, could lie beyond what we see and observe.  That should inspire humility.

Necessarily, science is concerned with what we can know.

Chapter 9, page 264:

if the history of science tells us anything about the big why questions, there can’t be much doubt that future centuries will see discoveries beyond what we can imagine today.  I suggest that there will always be a relativistic ‘beyond’ – beyond what we can know.