You asked…

Wouldn't you be better taking your ideas to your own blog like Mike Gene has done?

Sure, but then I would have to admit I'm serious about this.

If you click on my name, it will take you to my blog (such as it is).

I have been a design proponent arguing a hypotheses suggesting interconnected quantum effects could cause design in living organisms.

Wouldn't you be better taking your ideas to your own blog like Mike Gene has done?

There is a comment stuck that points out that I have been a design proponent arguing a hypotheses suggesting interconnected quantum effects could cause design in living organisms.

You wrote…

If you expect problems in quantum physics to be explained by intelligent design proponents then…

Maybe you missed that I AM the "intelligent design proponent" offering up a design hypothesis wrapped around bioquantum physics as seen by Sir Roger Penrose and Dr. Hameroff.

This is the result of being open minded enough to look past my general distrust of the ID Movement to listen to ID proponents like TT's Joy.

Here is a link to The Magic of Intelligent Design and The Third Choice.

I have argued this hypothesis both here and at After the Bar Closes. I would also argue it at Uncommon Descent but… well… here is the link to where you disinvited me.

I'm past due for an update. I am waiting for a break in my work schedule to offer a Guest Post.

(2) What, exactly, is front-loading, and when and where has it ever been observed?

The arch-proponent of "front loading" was generally accepted to be associate Professor (retired) John Davison until DaveScot pointed out that he had arrived at the same idea independently. As DaveScot is posting here at TT, for the moment at least, perhaps he can enlighten you.

I think it was Bilbo who focused a thread on "Behe's Test".

Bilbo wrote the blog entry. If the name had been John Smith, an unknown researcher who made the following ID claims, the responses would have been few in number.

Bradford: it is typical of your side's movement to focus on Behe and Dembski as if to think that discrediting them discredits a more encompassing idea that is larger than both

I think it was Bilbo who focused a thread on "Behe's Test".

TP: You did not offer your answers to the four questions. You did not give an indication of formulating your answers prior to looking at the results. You didn’t even indicate whether or not you looked at the results embodied in the link I provided. These questions are applicable for more than just “discrediting Behe's position”.

You're right. I did not answer the questions but don't expect critics to either. As for Behe's position, as an IDist, it does not concern me as much as it does the critics what Behe believes. He is one of many fish in the pond whose primary claim to fame is his notoriety as an author. Nothing wrong with that but it is typical of your side's movement to focus on Behe and Dembski as if to think that discrediting them discredits a more encompassing idea that is larger than both. When I look at the comments in this thread one theme stands out- Evolution dunnit. I don't want to hear about impediments. I might be tempted to believe this belief is based on an objective assessment of the evidence. Except for one thing. When there is a distinct lack of evidence they still believe. That's why I repeatedly raise the origins issue. It's a reminder that there are two movements.