For example, the Br paleohexaploid informs intelligent, hypothesis-driven enhancer experiments in Arabidopsis.
Two recent developments in teleological argumentation have involved the intelligent design hypothesis and fine tuning arguments.
(For one of countless instances of why the intelligent design hypothesis fails, see my HuffPost essay "Rocks in Our Heads").
It's tenets vary, but with feet planted firmly in the texts of the Bible creationists often believe that the stories of the Bible are of factual account rather than parable, that the Earth is only several thousand years old, that human evolution from primates did not occur and instead a supernatural being intervened and created humankind (the "intelligent design" hypothesis).
The Aug. 21 front-page article in the "Debate Over Darwin" series says, "As much philosophical worldview as scientific hypothesis, intelligent design challenges Darwin's theory of natural selection by arguing that some organisms are too complex to be explained by evolution alone, pointing to the possibility of supernatural influences".
Get intelligent intelligence.
The hypothesis that intelligent behavior in plants may be an emergent property of cells exchanging signals in a network might sound far-fetched, yet the way that intelligence emerges from a network of neurons may not be very different.
This has been labeled "incompetent design" by Wise (2005) and the "no-designer-worth-his-salt objection to the hypothesis of intelligent design" (Radick 2005; Sober 2008).
Todd", who refuted any possibility of considering supernatural explanations in the "scientific paper Nature" ("Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic", cited by, e.g., Morris [2001] and Puolimatka [2009], see the actual text in Todd [1999]).
"I'm passionately interested in the truth about the universe and I've always thought of the existence of an intelligent creator as a scientific hypothesis.
This statement, evolutionists have responded, may have theological validity, but it destroys intelligent design as a scientific hypothesis, because it provides it with an empirically impenetrable shield against predictions of how "intelligent" or "perfect" a design will be.
