Dembski's "colleagues"

Those with the fortitude to occasionally wallow through the self-aggrandizing drek spewn on Bill "Isaac Newton of Information Theory' Dembski's blog have probably noticed the occasional supposed 'testimonial' of some anonymous "colleague" of his.

There is a new "colleague" telling Dembski that you have to use engineering and design principles to understand cerebral blood flow:

A few years ago, my brain research took some interesting turns. I was developing a theory of blood flow to the brain, specifically a theory of how the delicate blood vessels in the brain are protected from the strong pulsatility of the heartbeat. I realized that the system in the cranium that affords this protection seems to be designed. ... Most of what I needed to know about pulsatile blood flow to the brain was in engineering textbooks! I was surprised as to how little some of the major paradigms in biology, especially Darwinism, contributed to my work. In fact, ignoring design obscured the most important aspects of my research. The assumption of design was heuristic.

Amazing, isn't it! That an anonymous brain researcher:
1. Wouldn't already understand blood flow in the brain
2. Would comment that major paradigms in biology did not inform him of how this occurs (I guess he never took physiology or neuroanatomy...)
3. that he concluded that all the answers were in engineering texts

Jeepers.

Well, which engineering texts? Surely this anonymous "brain researcher" actually looked at some engineering texts to understand the blood flow in the brain and could have provided their titles to wow all into acquiescence.

But wait - the brain researcher goes on:

Around that time, I came across Phillip Johnston’s Darwin on Trial in a bookstore, and went on to read Jonathan Well’s Icons of Evolution, Mike Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, and Bill Dembski’s Uncommon Dissent. For perspective, I read Dawkins, Dennett, and Gould as well. When I finished reading, I was astonished. And angry! Although my scientific talents are modest, I have developed a fairly acute sense for scientific nonsense. Darwinism is nonsense.

How true! Why, Phil Johnson, Wells, Behe and Dembski are the best places to learn the facts about evolution and "Darwinism." Everybody knows that - even this lowly 'brain researcher' with his modest talents - which, I am sure, pale in comparison to the GIANTS of ID!

Wait - there is more:

I believe that the best scientific explanation for the appearance of design in living things is that they are designed. This assumption forms the basis for my own research, and it’s a very powerful tool. My advice to young researchers in my field is: if you want to learn how cerebral blood flow works, study engineering. Study design.

Or, maybe, you could study physiology? Anatomy? Make actual measurements and observations?

Maybe this 'brain researcher' could start with a simple Google search:

Intracranial Pressure and Cerebral Blood Flow
especially this part


Also note the complete lack of skepticism displayed by the sycophants that post there:

These comments are good to hear from a practicing biologist.

Incredible. No names. No corroboration. No evidence. Just Dembski "quoting" a " colleague", who just happens to grovel at the feet of the Big Three of ID...

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!