Yes and no. Searching for adaptations can be designed in, but that is not ‘blind evolution’.
A difference in the science would be that PN would expect to see kludging and junk, whereas design expects elegance. Which do we really see? I know what I see in great proportion! If we conclude thst see some of the former, that could likely be because we are not aware of all the design criteria and rationales, and are presumptuous.
Why couldn’t intelligent design produce kludging and junk?
I see 90% of the human genome accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift. What does that tell us? How does ID measure kludging and junk in biology and within MN? How does it measure elegance?
Does anyone else have an observation or comment about this?
Because the Engineer (/Artist/Craftsman/Poet/Musician/…) is competent? Suggest to any self-respecting human enginneer that what they have produced is kludging and junk. 
That does not negate God’s providence.
That is another discussion, I guess. You have never seen designs in nature that you would consider elegant?
@DaleCutler misunderstands.
Many of us affirm design, and most have worked hard to give ID a fair hearing.
We think more progress will be made with a less oppositional approach to mainstream science, along with higher scientific standards, playing by the rules of science. We have demonstrated this to be true several times already.
ID was a toxic brand long before PS arose, but affirming design was never the problem. God created us all, and in this sense he designed us all. Shed the make bad arguments on behalf of ID, and join the scientific community, Accepting it’s standards. In that progress is made, fairly quickly.
I sure got flak for insisting that bacterial flagella were spun by motors. 
That sure suggests resistance to design inferences. (I was not insisting because of ‘IC’.)
Would I be right to conclude that what is meant by this is keeping the science within the boundaries of MN?
If not, what is meant by that?
We are ruthlessly opposed to bad arguments for design. That is entirely consistent with what I wrote. You have a different opinion about the strength of that “argument”, but I can tell you unequivocally it fails as a scientific argument. Those who care to be trustworthy in science will shed that argument.
Your recollection is actually a mistaken inference. I was not arguing about design. I was simply arguing that it was indeed a motor and should be called that, as in fact it already is.
Yes, and more. But I do not think your conception of MN matches actual practice. My book is coming out soon. It navigates this rule to argue for the de novo creation of Adam and Eve. Science is not the problem. It is doing just fine with MN. The issue is how we engage with it.
No doubt, there is a lot of resistance to bad scientific arguments made by ID. But @Winston_Ewert received (in my mind, at least) a very fair hearing on his hypothesis at work. It may be a considerable time investment, but here is a good link if you want to see more:
It would not be difficult for me to resent that.
My conception of MN, at least for the purpose of the immediate question about the rules of science and based on comments up the line of this discussion thread, is that for a design inference to be considered legitimate, the inferred designer must itself be explainable within MN. You confirmed that that was a correct application of MN.
My guess would be that that matches actual practice in some circles and does not match practice in other circles.
Fine. You’re entitled to your definition, as long as you state it. But neither Behe nor anyone else has appointed T. aquaticus the official definer of the term “evolution” for the whole world. If you want to have a meaningful conversation with people who use terms differently, you have to register those differences before you declare that they have made errors. Most of your objections to Behe have rested on the equivocation between evolution as “descent with modification” and evolution as “an unguided process of blind search for viable outcomes.” And I’ve had no success in getting you to see this.
Maybe one could. But the TEs say they are talking about not just any intelligent designer, but the God of the Bible, as understood in evangelical Christianity. And they have never made clear how a genuinely open-ended search for adaptations is compatible with planned outcomes determined in advance by God. When asked about it, they won’t even discuss it, beyond chanting “Providence, providence, providence.” You’d think they all worked for the Chamber of Commerce on Rhode Island.
It isn’t. Explicit allegiance to PN is fine with me. Then I know where someone stands, what his assumptions are, why he takes the positions he does, why he rules out certain options, etc. The problem comes only when one position (PN) is subtly promoted while the person claims he’s only endorsing a more modest one (MN). Whenever that happens, it’s right for observers to blow the whistle.
It could, if that scientist uses his vote in hiring and tenure decisions, and his influence over granting decisions, and his vote at Ph.D. oral examinations, to ensure that any scientist who thinks there is something outside of nature doesn’t dare utter a peep about design inferences, on pain of losing his scientific career. And while you might be more open-minded about such things, I think you know that there are some of your atheist colleagues who aren’t.
I agree; there is no need for thought police. But I haven’t seen Behe, etc. arguing that biologists shouldn’t be allowed to investigate Darwinian accounts of evolution, while I have seen biologists strongly suggest that people who think ID is credible should be drummed out of scientific careers. The thought policing, to the extent that it exists in secular biology departments, is more on one side than on the other.
If you are not interested enough in Denton’s thesis to read it for yourself, then in my view you lack a healthy intellectual curiosity. Genuinely curious people like to read the latest ideas of highly intelligent authors, especially ideas in their own academic field (biology) and relating to issues that are of obvious interest to them (origins). Denton’s book is one the most important ID books written, and so if you are going to debate in public about ID, you should want to get it straight rather than rely on the summary of someone else. And don’t say you’re a busy scientist who doesn’t have time to read 400-page books. You spend more time in one week reading posts here and replying to them than it would take you to read Denton’s book. You just can’t be bothered. And that fine; but then you can’t blame me when I say that I can’t be bothered investing my personal time to summarize works for you that you lack the initiative to read for yourself.
How do those differ with respect to the science? How do you differentiate between guided and unguided processes in evolutionary science?
If we were watching bacteria evolve in the lab, what tests would you or Behe do to see if guidance was occurring? Behe seems to indicate that if we see mutations happening in the lab then those mutations are unguided. Can you cite any example where Behe claims that naturally occurring and observed mutations are guided by a designer? I can’t.
ID seems to be really vacuous because it really doesn’t explain anything.
It could also work in the opposite direction.
Also, there aren’t any ID grants, so that isn’t a problem.
I suppose there are the same reactions to flat earthers in geology departments.
Do you agree with Denton that abiogenesis is the origin of life, and that it occurred as naturally as salt crystal formation?
Oh, Eddie. Heads you win, tails I lose. Remember the part I wrote about ‘partisanship’?
The case isn’t so much as whether God is only present in miracles or also in the maintenance or furtherance of the universe. It’s the case of whether, if mechanisms can found to account for the existence of humans, life and the world, whether that makes the case for God irrelevant. And it’s pretty clear that this is a indeed a worry for some within ID. And it’s a case that some IDers even press against TE/ECs as being unfaithful to Christian theology by being open to the evolution of humans, the chemical origin of life ant etc. So let’s leave it at that.
I can get along w a person who calls themselves a Christian but who accepts the form of evolution espoused by mainstream science in universities today. I can get along with anyone. But it is a whole other thing to accept the influence of such views in the church at large. The entire Bible consists of supernatural actions of a God who transcends nature so im thinking that to make mans science the basis of interpretive influence of Scripture not be very wise.
You may be trustworthy, but scientist don’t trust people who press limited analogies as fact. This is not my pronouncement. It is just a fact.
It’s a fact that it’s called a motor, as well it should be. No limitations.