ABSTRACT
In general terms, even something as simple as the colour of fur can be a biological adaptation and an example of functional order. While traditional design arguments were based on the visible anatomical features of organisms, much of ID's argumentation is based on biochemical machines' only visible with advanced instruments. Massimo Pigliucci, Peter Boudry and some other Intelligent Design (ID) critics have argued that proponents of ID use this kind of machine-like language in a more literalistic fashion than naturalistic biologists. The situation is similar in the case of biological information, which forms the other main basis for ID's biological design arguments. As with talk of biological machines, Meyer and Dembski can certainly claim wide support for their understanding of biological genetic and epigenetic information as a masterful code. The ID movement's critique of evolutionary biology is mostly aimed at the sufficiency of the Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of complex functional order in life.
