If intelligent design is junk science (as it is so often accused of being), then this absolutely qualifies as junk science: “ET Genetic Code May Be Found In Human DNA, According To Kazakhstan Scientists’ Biological SETI Theory.”

But Mike, it’s peer reviewed.

And it’s junk science.

How do I know?

Look at the abstract to the actual journal article. What you have here is (a) an idea [i.e., a theory] defended by (b) math. In other words, science has added another sacrament to its panspermia religion to keep the blessed Drake Equation company. There is *nothing* repeatable in this “science” and nothing empirical in terms of data. There is nothing to falsify.

Nothing. Zero. Nada.

The article is in essence saying: “Hey, ET DNA may be encoded in our DNA – have an equation” (rim shot).

Like I said, if intelligent design is going to be criticized for the above (it’s non-falsifiable and unrepeatable), this article and theory is the poster child for junk science.

The most hypocritical part of it is that you could just swap in the word “God” here and there in the abstract and defend intelligent design just as unscientifically.