Another strawman argument from alwight....
Nobody said or even hinted the article said that.
Then make up your mind I thought you were a creationist and were claiming that DNA was pre-created as is, so now you're an "evolutionist"? :liberals:
Your bias prevents you from real science ...real knowledge. Your bias considers only one alternative and is not willing to follow the evidence when it leads to a Creator. Your bias is the reason you accept non-science beliefs, such as life from non life.
Then perhaps I was only humouring you 6days. Yes from your perspective I may show some bias it's true, but if as I suspect there is in fact no such thing as a supernatural, only a natural, then by my own measure I'm not in reality being biased at all.
If otoh your supernatural can be shown to even exist, only then would there be some relevance or context to the word "bias". I don't know how biased I would be then, but currently though I simply deal only with the natural real world as I see it, not your supposed supernatural one.
And your comments must all be spin from Talkorigins? Can you present a logical argument without all the strawmans and ad homs?
I won't claim never to have used such Talkorigin based information as a quick reference, only very rarely. But if we're talking about verifiable peer reviewed science then there are plenty of other reputable agenda-free sources available to double check facts with. If Talkorigins simply manufactured eye candy and spin for "evolutionists" then I'm rather sure that "evolutionists" would be more than able to recognise it and compare it with such other sources.
Dawkins has become nothing more than a showman. His books have progressed from mostly science, to mostly his religion. His arguments often are poor/ illogical (Not always of course) . Is there anything in "greatest show" that you think is a persuasive argument? (Or any other book of his?) Dawkins is also a bit of a chicken...He picks and chooses weak opponents to debate, but dodges the better Christian debaters.
Feel better now?
You seem to doubt that Dawkins says things have the appearance of design. In this video, as an example, he says our bodies were not designed... They just appear that way... and stop using that word!!
Interesting video... Watch them try not say 'designed'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAVyktynD_I&feature=player_embedded
And watch for Dawkins strawman arguments.
What you fail to understand 6days is that Dawkins is aware more than most just how much YECs will deliberately misquote words used generally as a figure of speech to try to give a whole new and unintended meaning.
The word "design" is an excellent example of this. Most natural scientists do not need to concern themselves with creationists and will talk about "design" simply as a way to describe the overall construction of something, no intention at all of invoking an intelligent designer. Their colleagues and peers all understand what they mean and there is no confusion.
Dawkins otoh is well used to dealing with creationists and knows that he at least won't be allowed to get away with using the word "design" as a figure of speech. He knows that creationists will claim a gotcha moment, as they do, which is why when that word comes up he pretty much always has to labour the point and make the meaning absolutely clear, mainly for the benefit of YECs, that no actual designer is being proposed, lest such words are disingenuously quoted out of context at some future time.