Todd Wood on BIO-Complexity

Remember when the Biologic Institute produced BIO-Complexity, a new journal that would investigate the scientific evidence for design. Here was the tag line:

BIO-Complexity is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a unique goal. It aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life. Because questions having to do with the role and origin of information in living systems are at the heart of the scientific controversy over ID, these topics—viewed from all angles and perspectives—are central to the journal's scope.

Todd Wood writes that he was originally enthusiastic about the new journal and its mission. Today, within the context of a review of a paper in that journal, he writes the following:

In the larger scheme of things, I am sensing a discouraging pattern to BIO-Complexity publications. As I quoted above, the journal is supposed to be about "testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life," which is a great goal. But this is the fifth paper published by BIO-Complexity, and it's the fifth paper that focuses on perceived inadequacies of evolution. So when are we going to test "the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life?" I don't want to be too pessimistic, though, since I am a big fan of research and technical publications. I'm genuinely happy that BIO-Complexity exists and is publishing this sort of work. I just hope that in the future, we'll begin to see some positive research for ID rather than just anti-evolution work.

Why am I not surprised? It still is not clear to me that there can ever be research that can test the scientific merit of the ID claim. The principle problem is that no mechanism exists. Because no mechanism exists and, consequently, no theory exists, ID can only be shown to be a viable explanation when all other explanations have been shown to be false. It MUST focus on anti-evolution work because as long as the evolutionary framework exists to explain the genetic and biological diversity, there is no reason to accept the ID explanation. This, to me, is a critical failing in current ID research.