One of the latest posts on Evolution News & Views (sic) emphasizes this point [More Clues that Intergenic DNA Is Functional]. Its author doesn't identify herself/himself. The point of the post is to cherry-pick a couple of papers from the scientific literature, including the horrible paper by Hangauer et al. (2013) [see How to Make a Scientific Argument ].
Here's what the IDiot concludes ...
It’s clear that the search for function is driving this cutting-edge research. Search for function is exactly what intelligent-design science would recommend. Darwinians describe natural selection as a tinkerer, generating useless parts as well as structures cobbled together that might do something by chance, since there is no supervising designer to guide the process in a particular way. By contrast, intelligent design expects that what exists, as the product of mind, is there for a reason.I wonder what they'll say when this debate is over and junk DNA wins? Maybe they'll abandon Intelligent Design Creationism?
Remember how Darwinists call ID a “science stopper,” since it supposedly counsels just giving up and saying, “God did it”? The real science stopper is Darwinism. It focused only on protein-coding genes and dismissed everything else as “transcriptional noise” or “junk DNA” left behind by the blind tinkerer. Why waste time studying junk? Were it not for that attitude, our understanding of intergenic DNA function might have been much farther along by now.
Note that in spite of years of effort by real scientists, the IDiots refuse to admit that there's plenty of solid evidence for junk DNA. We've told them time and time again that there's plenty of functional DNA that isn't in protein-encoding genes and we've told them time and time again that hundreds of labs have studied genome and concluded that we have evidence of junk. The IDiots have never admitted that they understand pseudogenes, broken bits and pieces of transposons, genetic load, introns, lack of sequence conservation, megabasepair deletions, repetitive DNA, DNA-binding proteins, and genome size variation.
Why is that? Is it because they're IDiots?