@cicerone imposter,
The article's main point is,
"The complex results of evolution that have been achieved by DNA are understood, but the mechanisms involved in reaching these results are not understood, and people like you don't even know how little science actually does understand."
For that reason you base your conclusions based on scientific conclusions that were made using inductive reasoning describing mechanisms that are not even understood. Here is a quote from the article in Scientific America that you linked. (See bold type)
Quote: problem shared
Barely a whisper of this vibrant debate reaches the public. Take evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins' description in Prospect magazine last year of the gene as a replicator with “its own unique status as a unit of Darwinian selection”. It conjures up the decades-old picture of a little, autonomous stretch of DNA intent on getting itself copied, with no hint that selection operates at all levels of the biological hierarchy, including at the supraorganismal level, or that the very idea of 'gene' has become problematic.
Why this apparent reluctance to acknowledge the complexity? One roadblock may be sentimentality. Biology is so complicated that it may be deeply painful for some to relinquish the promise of an elegant core mechanism. In cosmology, a single, shattering fact (the Universe's accelerating expansion) cleanly rewrote the narrative. But in molecular evolution, old arguments, for instance about the importance of natural selection and random drift in driving genetic change, are now colliding with questions about non-coding RNA, epigenetics and genomic network theory. It is not yet clear which new story to tell.
Then there is the discomfort of all this uncertainty following the rhetoric surrounding the Human Genome Project, which seemed to promise, among other things, 'the instructions to make a human'. It is one thing to revise our ideas about the cosmos, another to admit that we are not as close to understanding ourselves as we thought.
There may also be anxiety that admitting any uncertainty about the mechanisms of evolution will be exploited by those who seek to undermine it. Certainly, popular accounts of epigenetics and the ENCODE results have been much more coy about the evolutionary implications than the developmental ones. But we are grown-up enough to be told about the doubts, debates and discussions that are leaving the putative 'age of the genome' with more questions than answers. Tidying up the story bowdlerizes the science and creates straw men for its detractors. Simplistic portrayals of evolution encourage equally simplistic demolitions.
When the structure of DNA was first deduced, it seemed to supply the final part of a beautiful puzzle, the solution for which began with Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel. The simplicity of that picture has proved too alluring. For the jubilee, we should do DNA a favor and lift some of the awesome responsibility for life's complexity from its shoulders.
To understand a mechanism you must be able to picture in your mind how the mechanism works. You cannot understand how an automatic transmission works by driving a car and watching it shift, you must understand by picturing what the mechanisms inside the transmission are doing.
An interesting bias is revealed in the final bold faced line.
Quote:
There may also be anxiety that admitting any uncertainty about the mechanisms of evolution will be exploited by those who seek to undermine it.Certainly, popular accounts of epigenetics and the ENCODE results have been much more coy about the evolutionary implications than the developmental ones. But we are grown-up enough to be told about the doubts, debates and discussions that are leaving the putative 'age of the genome' with more questions than answers. Tidying up the story bowdlerizes the science and creates straw men for its detractors. Simplistic portrayals of evolution encourage equally simplistic demolitions.
The author eliminates opposing views by labeling them as straw men arguments without discussing them. The problem is, he is eliminating arguments strictly on the type of philosophy being used to interpret the data by the opposition. (naive realism and objective idealism rather than materialism and subjective idealism) instead of the nature of the data. It is legitimate to use inductive reasoning to assume intelligence is possibly behind complex structures when we observe that pattern everyday in human intelligence. Human intelligence reveals everyday that intelligence in nature is a vital ingredient to complexity in nature. It is a legitimate use of inductive reasoning to objectively conclude that the pattern established by humans on a small scale could follow through on a grander scale in nature as a whole.
wiki
Quote: Naturalism is a philosophical belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world according to the laws of physics. According to the following quote from Wikipedia:
Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists, and the following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method:
1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers. "The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality." "Objective reality is clearly an essential thing if we are to develop a meaningful perspective of the world. Nevertheless, its very existence is assumed." Our belief that objective reality exist is an assumption that it arises from a real world outside of ourselves. As infants we made this assumption unconsciously. People are happy to make this assumption that adds meaning to our sensations and feelings, than live with solipsism." Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else.”
2. that this objective reality is governed by natural laws; "Science, at least today, assumes that the universe obeys to knowable principles that don't depend on time or place, nor on subjective parameters such as what we think, know or how we behave." Hugh Gauch argues that science presupposes that "the physical world is orderly and comprehensible."
3. that reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation. Stanley Sobottka said, "The assumption of external reality is necessary for science to function and to flourish. For the most part, science is the discovering and explaining of the external world." "Science attempts to produce knowledge that is as universal and objective as possible within the realm of human understanding."
4. that Nature has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould referred to these two closely related propositions as the constancy of nature's laws and the operation of known processes. Simpson agrees that the axiom of uniformity of law, an unprovable postulate, is necessary for scientists to extrapolate inductive inference into the unobservable past in order to meaningfully study it.
5. that experimental procedures will be done satisfactorily without any deliberate or unintentional mistakes that will influence the results.
6. that experimenters won't be significantly biased by their presumptions.
7. that random sampling is representative of the entire population. A simple random sample (SRS) is the most basic probabilistic option used for creating a sample from a population. The benefit of SRS is that the investigator is guaranteed to choose a sample that represents the population that ensures statistically valid conclusions.
The first assumption is ignored because an objective reality must be viewed from a point of view that is on the scales of time and the physical size (universal and microscopic ) that outside the natural capabilities of a man. (One must use inductive reasoning to obtain a God's eye view of the processes even if you don't believe in God. as described in number 4 above.)
And 5, 6 and 7 are ignored by assuming the complexity can be explained away without intelligence and intentionally eliminating it from the discussion because it "might" provide a straw man argument for the opposing view.
