D’Andrea-Winslow L, Novitski AK (2008) Active bleb formation is abated in Lytechinus variegatus red spherule coelomocytes after disruption of acto-myosin contractility. Integrative Zoology 3: 106-113. doi:10.1111/j.1749-4877.2008.00086.x
Axe DD, Dixon BW, Lu P (2008) Stylus: A system for evolutionary experimentation based on a protein/proteome model with non-arbitrary functional constraints. PLoS ONE 3: e2246. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002246
Sternberg RV (2008) DNA codes and information: Formal structures and relational causes. Acta Biotheoretica doi:10.1007/s10441-008-9049-6. PMID: 18465197
Gonzalez G (2008) Parent stars of extrasolar planets – IX. Lithium abundances. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Online Early Articles doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13067.x
The first paper is about immune cells in sea urchins and concludes that “the acto-myosin contractile mechanism contributes to the dynamics of constitutive cell surface membrane blebbing in invertebrate immune cells.” I’m sure this is interesting stuff for invertebrate biologists, but it is hardly a breakthrough for the “Intelligent Science” that the Biologic Institute espouses. The second paper describes a computer program (Stylus) for the study of protein evolution using Chinese characters, and the paper does not seem to offer any support for ID. Indeed, Konrad Sheffler (the PloS editor for the manuscript) explicitly notes that he “did not detect any such [ideological] bias [towards ID] in this manuscript; nor do the results support intelligent design in any way.” As he points out, “there is still no substitute for empirical data” when examining biological processes. Sternberg’s paper is a theoretical one in which he takes a structuralist approach and proposes “that a variety of structural realism can assist us in rethinking the concepts of DNA codes and information apart from semantic criteria.” Empirical data is no where to be seen. Gonzalez’ paper confirms “recent claims that the Li abundances of stars with planets are smaller than those of stars without planets near the solar temperature.” It’s empirical but no design-related.
So there you have it. Four very different papers with no apparent connection to the desiderata I mentioned in my original post: “(a) evidence for design, (b) a method to unambiguously detect design, or (c) a theory of how the Designer did the designing”.
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success" (in review).
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II "The Information Cost of No Free Lunch," (in review)
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II "Horizontal and Vertical No Free Lunch for Active Information in Assisted Searches" (in review)
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II "Judicious Use of Computational Resources in Evolutionary Search" (in review)
I can’t find where Dembski made the announcement, but I’m fairly sure that he neither stated which paper was accepted or to which journal. In any case, it is a moot point. None of these papers offer anything by the way of a recognizable Design theory.