Example H. Allen Orr:
The pages of this magazine are not often taken up with reviews of creationist screeds. The stuff is, after all, intellectual junk food, served up with a transparent evangelical agenda. But now and then a reputable, or even esteemed, scientist launches an assault on evolution. These attacks are potentially important and, whether sound or not, are invariably great head-turners. A generation ago, for instance, the astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle announced that the theory of natural selection was deeply flawed and could never account for the existence of complex organisms like you and me. Hoyle's objections were frankly silly, reflecting an embarrassing misunderstanding of Darwinian logic. In retrospect, there was only one reason anyone listened: Hoyle was a physicist. And as everyone-including biologists-then knew, physicists are smarter than the rest of us.
But the days of biologists suffering physics envy are long gone. We biologists have discovered the structure of DNA, broken the genetic code, sequenced the entire genome of some species, and, to a remarkable extent, figured out how a little egg turns into a big person (the last in a breathtaking decade). If a Hoyle were to now announce that biologists are deeply confused about natural selection or neurobiology, he'd be greeted, if at all, with a big yawn. There's only one way to shake up biologists now-the attack has to come from within.
He's got that part right anyway, you typically can't tell evolutionary biologists a damned thing, because they've got it all figured out... everybody else is wrong, and are now proven to be more stupid than them... end of story. Yeah, right.
These geniuses KNOW that there is no such thing as "design in nature", even though they can't exactly tell you what that even means, other than to say that they see it as requiring "intent". They somehow have this magical knowledge that supercedes that of actual design designers, and yet they really have no idea how one might recognize an algorithm for "design" in nature if they saw it.
Can you say... pre-conceived ideological prejudice?... It is a fact that patterns in nature are the essence of all math and physics, so if they aren't a valid representation for design in nature, then we truly are children of Chaos, the almighty god of random insanity, which is what the fools would have us believe, given the choice that they don't have, thanks to fanatical activists on the other runaway end of the diametrically opposing ideological spectrum that currently govern the direction of the political tide.
Evolutionary biologists, like Orr, openly scoff at engineers and experimental physicists when these professionals quite often point out to them that they've often discovered, (after the fact), that the stuff that they have designed already exists in nature, and it turns out that they have designed it for the very same functional purpose that arose from some common and practical physical need!
"An engineer said it... so, " nuff said "...
This is a favored expression of evolutionary biologists, and isn't it nice to know that we have these people to tell us that design engineers don't know what design looks like when they see it, or we might actually have to give them their due respect and take a serious look at what they are talking about.
What evolutionary biologists recognize when they look at examples for "design"-in-nature, is right about exactly on par with what Orr said. It doesn't matter what engineers recognize when it comes the this subject, the following is all that matters:
The stuff is, after all, intellectual junk food, served up with a transparent evangelical agenda.
So don't listen to physicists and design engineers that point to examples for "design in nature", because their observational interpretations aren't always keyed into the politics and they might inadvertantly give creationists an inch, for which they would then take a mile. Instead, declare that you know better, even though you're demonstratably less qualified to make a call about it than design engineers are.
Tell me, oh-wise.all-knowing.evo-biologist.god... if design doesn't exist in nature, then just exactly how would you define what engineers do...?
Or are you claiming that engineers aren't a part of nature too?
I've got a little news for you willfully clueless geniuses... that "don't understand the physics." The capability for "design" doesn't just pop-out of humans if the potential for its emergence doesn't pre-exist within physics that constrains the force constants of nature, so it can only be your sheer unadulterated human arrogance that gives you the unmitigated audacity to "believe" that "human-intent" can ever reflect anything greater or less than the sum of expressed bias toward satisfying a pre-existing physical need.
Some web references:
H. Allen Orr - Evolution - Intelligent Design - Science - Religion - Education - Creationism - Astrophysics - Spagetti Monster - Cosmology