rationalskepticism.org

Congratulations on another fucking fail, I did not say that said author is not arguing for ID, and your attempt at misrepresenting this is laughable. What I did say was that while you quoted it as if it was an objectively derived assertion, the context makes it clear that it was subjectively derived. Care to learn to read anytime soon?

I just wanted to make it sure so you could not claim that I'm quote mining the author.

Anyway, its a fact that we can describe the bacterial flagellum as a machine. And since machines are a product of design, then design is a good working hypothesis for the flagellum. That doesn't mean that the flagellum is designed, just that it's a good working hypothesis for science. And not only that but that the author's ideas were derived objectively not subjectively.

And High-impact journals are popular because of rigour, as the work contained therein is consistently of a very high standard, even if we were to assume that high-impact journals are popular, this doesn't mean that pro-evolution articles will be "easily" published, nor does it mean that ID articles will be rejected just for being pro-ID, which is what you were asserting, and since your posts are dotted throughout the thread it shouldn't be a problem for people to go back and deal with your garbage.

Are you saying that it is not a possibility why HI journals are popular is for some other reason than rigour?

Regarding your use of search wrt evolution, note that scientists carry out search using evolutionary algorithms to solve specific problems, this is not tantamount to saying that evolution is a search

What else would you call it? You are using it to FIND something? What elese would you call it?

when evolutionary algorithms are used for, say, designing satellite antennae, the end criterion is very specifically mentioned, in other words there is teleology in the application of algorithms based on the concept of evolution to human objectives, none of this is indicative of teleology in nature. Learn the fucking difference.

It pretty much is. Because as you precisely said, the program has to be set up with a specific goal in mind. Simply choosing a goal at random won't give us very good results. Thus, we can say that if evolution did happen, if we really did evolve, then that would mean that the evolution was set up to find what it found. Meaning, it was set up to evolve life.