This is the quote from the digg.com article:
Why? It isn’t science.
An interesting read that says intelligent design (ID), or a creator (ie God), is bogus basically because it is not interesting.
It’s interesting how the author looks at ID in an almost positive spin then argues against IDs two main arguments: irreducible complexity and specified complexity.
There is another article from the same author that pretty much attacks ID again.
I also found a 4 part series arguing the creation/ID side of things which is also an interesting read and references the previous article.
There are interesting points from both sides, but I’m still amazed at how someone can right of an intelligent creator just because it’s not as interesting as evolution.Buffer