All these ID reasearch papers...

idnet.com.au at uncommondescent claims (re certain papers he reads in Nature):

Almost every time I read the abstracts and even the titles, or spend more time delving into the detail, I hear “Intelligent Design” silently screamed from the pages. Am I deluded, or do others hear it too? Here is a recent example.

He then quotes from an article about cell signalling and leg morphogenesis in Drosophila. He seems to think that the article in question screams design since it contains words such as "specifies", "signal" and "information" (well, he bolded these words and added no further comments). But how on Earth does presenting some research that examines something complicated containing a few ID buzz-words support ID? The answer as far as I can tell is "I think something looks intelligently designed, so therefore it was intelligently designed". So, I guess that the article supports ID just because an ID supporter thinks it does.

Maybe I'm deaf, or maybe I'm reading this in outer space, because I can't hear the screaming. Or maybe idnet.com.au really is deluded(?).