We’re honored to have Piotr as part of the UD discussions. Though I most certainly disagree with his views about biological evolution, I salute his devotion to the important discipline of linguistics. I would like to acknowledge and promote his blog http://langevo.blogspot.com/.
One of my current research interests is in the linguistics of DNA and biological systems in general. There is an ongoing and public dispute over the question of junk DNA in humans. If DNA is shown to be mostly functional in humans, it would suggest most DNA follows some sort of language. In fact, ID proponents are sympathetic to the idea that there are multiple overlapping languages in DNA.
If there are multiple languages in DNA, then it will be a challenge to elucidate these languages. Beyond that, there seems to be many languages in biological organisms beyond DNA. Many are highly transaction oriented that follow communication models familiar to engineers, and some not so familiar.
One of the most advanced ID speculations is that the diversity of creatures and their form is not the product of mindless evolution but the diversity is structured to provide Rosetta stones to understand the linguistics of biology. This is the field Bill Dembski refers to as steganography in biology. I believe biological steganography exists and the search for it is one of the grand quests of ID.
Because biology seems so linked to language while “design” is such a taboo word, the discipline of Biosemiotics has become the latest rage among design-haters who recognize language in biology. I perused a gigantic online volume of biosemiotics and not once did they say something like:
these sets of symbols are designed in order to communicate ….
I foresee an odd alliance between the ID community and the biosemiotic community.
The problem is language, even poorly implemented languages, is the product of a purposeful activity. Biology looks to me like a massive language (information) processor. Some may choose to avoid the word “design” to describe language for philosophical reasons, but the linguistic structures are there, and if there is steganography in biology, to discover it would be one of the greatest adventures in study of languages.