Been following the ENCODE project for some time and found the following comments from IDers interesting.
Some of these biologists are now exploring what they call "post-Darwinian" models of evolution, often adopting the same critiques of Darwinism that ID proponents offer. They still seek unguided material evolutionary explanations of life and are resistant to design. But that resistance is weakening. Indeed, widespread fears about aiding intelligent design show that many biologists understand how ENCODE's results represent a major breakthrough for ID. As William Dembski eloquently put it some 14 years pre-ENCODE:
"Design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. ... Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it."
Another pesky random thought. The really 'pure' Darwinians insist that only 3 to 5% of DNA is useful and the rest is junk. Since there are presumably about 3 billion 'bits' total in DNA, that would make only around 100 million bits available for the instructions for how to build a human being. Pretty good trick. That's only enough to encode about 30 songs on my ipad using MP3 compression. Even if they are wrong and all the DNA is needed, the compression required to put all that in 3 billion bits is a monumental design achievement.
Let's see, Microsoft Windows operating system is how many GIGA bytes?