FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-14-2003, 11:27 AM   #1
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,450
Default "Design vs. Descent: A war of predictions" Check this one out!

Just to be clear, I'm an atheist (I can imagine from the thread title it might look like a post from an ID type).

I'm wondering if anyone has seen this ID web site, which purports to explain predictions drawn from the theory of Intelligent Design.

They pit it as "Design vs. Descent: A war of predictions." Naturally, you can tell who, in their mind, comes out on top.

Some other fundies with whom I often debate are actually swallowing this stuff of course. I'd love to see the experienced folk on this forum have a go at it. First, a couple of the predictions from the site:

(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.

(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.

(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.

(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

Here's the full article on the web page:

Link To ID vs Evolution Predictions

Have fun!

Prof is offline  
Old 08-14-2003, 11:44 AM   #2
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Massachusetts, USA -- Let's Go Red Sox!
Posts: 1,500

Thats cute, seeing as how,

1) If "irreducibly complexity" even makes sense, its perfectly consistent with the modern theory of evolution (co-option of preexisting functionality)...

2) The fossil record unambiguously documents evolution...

3) Is perfectly consistent with common ancestry...

and 4) Despite the fact that some psuedogenes may have function, most do not.

I loved this part:

Genes and functional parts will reflect those inherited through ancestry, and are only shared by related organisms
Well golly, that would be ALL organisms, wouldnt it? :banghead:

God Fearing Atheist is offline  
Old 08-14-2003, 01:39 PM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: California
Posts: 646

I'm beginning to think that Casey Luskin's a YEC. He never declared himself in an email debate I had with him awhile ago, and now he says:

Indeed, many forms of "creation science" make a variety of predictions which are empirically testable. One example is that young earth creationism predicts that various observable lines of evidence will be found to show that rocks, the oceans, and the solar system are young. Regardless of whether or not such evidence is found, the theory makes scientific predictions which can be tested in the natural world, and thus qualifies the young earth hypothesis as a falsifiable and testable scientific theory.
The basic answers to Luskin's points are listed below. The quotes are from his last table, I've inserted 'Ev', 'ID', and ''Fact''.

1. Biochemical complexity
Ev: High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will NOT be found.
ID: High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
'Fact': High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures are commonly found.
As has been discussed ad nauseum, gradual evolutionary processes can, and regularly do, produce intricate systems with multiple required parts. The most important mechanism is simply change-of-function, emphasized by Darwin and every biological authority since, and supported by numerous examples.

The Origin of "Information" via natural causes;f=9;t=6

immune system evolution;f=9;t=16

Evolution of multiple-parts-required pathways;f=9;t=17

Co-option/change of function;f=9;t=8

Evolving Immunity

Irreducible Complexity Demystified

2. Fossil Record
Ev: Forms will appear in the fossil record as a gradual progression with transitional series.
ID: Forms will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any precursors.
'Fact': Forms tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any precursors.
There are plenty of transitional fossils:

'Punk Eek' is an application of Mayr's theory of allopatric speciation to paleontology, and applies only to species-species transitions, which are indeed commonly (but not always, studies of good fossil records often put the number at 50-50) absent. Gould himself has said that for transitions between higher taxonomic levels there are plenty of transitionals.

A classic example is the horse fossil record, where some species "microevolve" and some appear abruptly:

The Cambrian 'Explosion', OTOH, is probably mostly the result of the emergence of large, hard-bodied critters from their microscopic, wormlike ancestors, see:

3. Distribution of Molecular and Morphological Characteristics

Ev: Genes and functional parts will reflect those inherited through ancestry, and are only shared by related organisms.
ID: Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
'Fact': Genes and functional parts often are not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms.
Luskin quote-mines a whole bunch of quotes on incongruence, but neglects to mention that the big picture is that of congruence with a high degree of statistical confidence:

Quote-mining with molecular phylogeny:

The major exceptions only occur in (1) the well-accepted symbiotic theory for the origin of eukaryotes, and (2) prokaryotes, where we know **on independent evidence** that Lateral Gene Transfer is a common event.

4. Genetic Code
Ev: The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA."
ID: The genetic code will contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA."
'Fact': Increased knowledge of genetices has created a strong trend towards functionality for "junk-DNA"; examples of DNA of unknown function persist, but function can be expected or explained under a design pardigm.
"Junk" DNA;f=9;t=35

The basic observation supporting the 'junk DNA' inference is not pseudogenes -- these are a small fraction of noncoding DNA. The basic observation is that closely-related critters can have widely-varying amounts of non-coding DNA with no apparent ill-effects.

The C-value paradox emerged from among the first applications of spectrophotometric analysis of nuclear DNA content1. The haploid DNA content of eukaryotic organisms ranges over a factor of 80,000. Some of the largest genomes are found among the lowliest of eukaryotes, such as the amoebae, and some of the smallest genomes are found among organisms with complex developmental and behavioural repertoires, such as Drosophila melanogaster.

Charlie d explains it quite well here:

Ironically, the anti-ID letter the DI complains about led me to read an article by a German biologist, apparently an ID sympathizer. Inexplicably, it was published in the prestigious, by-invitation-only Annual Review in Genetics - perhaps because it contained actual information (along with many unsupported and overextended interpretations, but that's just my opinion), and not just a pointless, self-defeating whine like Behe's letter.

Anyway, that paper happens to cite an interesting piece of data that I was unaware of, and which significantly undermines Behe's entire argument that the attribution of lack of function to non-genic DNA is based only on a negative argument (there are many more lines of evidence, of course, but I thought this was nice, especially given the coincidence about the sources).

The data is as follows. These guys (Muntiacus reevesi):

and this (M. muntjak):

are almost identical, they live in very similar environments in Southern China vs. India/South Asia/Indonesia, and just happened to be classified as differnet species because they do not interbreed. The major difference between them is that one has 46 chromosomes and the other 6/7, and one has 20% less DNA than the other, entirely ascribable to the reduction of various kind of non-genic, repetitive elements (ref here.

Go figure: a 20% DNA content difference between practically identical vertebrates (by comparison, remember chimps and humans differ by a few % at most). Gee, I wonder why biologists tend to conclude that most non-genic DNA has no significant function. Must be all that "negative argumentation", indeed.
Until IDists start talking about these kinds of facts they aren't even in the ballpark regarding 'junk DNA'.

PS: Oh yeah. Luskin accidentally switched his 'predictions' regarding junk DNA.

PPS: The problem Luskin has with creating a "falsifiable" ID theory, when he explicitly says that he is open to a mix-n-match view, where if A is proven to be a result of evolution, he can accept that and instead assert that B, or C is a result of ID, shall be left for others to explore.
Nic Tamzek is offline  
Old 08-14-2003, 02:50 PM   #4
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,101

1) How can a theory be unfalsifiable, and therefore supposedly unscientific, and yet be falsified by scientific evidence? and
As usual for creationists, he is playing games with words. All evidence points against design from any type of designer, whether it be supernatural or natural. Invoking a supernatural cause is un-falsifiable, but claiming design is not. Design is falsifiable and contradicts the evidence. The supernatural isn't even worth bringing up.

2) Does evolution itself qualify as a scientific theory which can be falsified by scientific evidence?

Though different from creation science in very important ways, intelligent design, like any good scientific theory, makes testable predictions.
Which unfortunately for their theories do not match the evidence.

Ways Designers Act When Designing
(1) Take many parts and arrange them in highly specified and complex patterns which perform a specific function.9, 31
This would not allow anyone to determine a designer is responsible instead of natural processes that produce the same result.

(2) Rapidly infuse any amounts of genetic information into the biosphere, including large amounts, such that at times rapid morphological or genetic changes could occur in populations.10
Why would this be characteristic of a designer? Why would the designer initially create life, and then at certain intervals inject genetic information into the biosphere? This is pure ad hoc argumentation formed to try and fit the evidence. It doesn't follow from a designer in any way I can see.

(3) 'Re-use parts' over-and-over in different types of organisms (design upon a common blueprint).
Except that a designer would do their best to eliminate reuse of errors in previous designs. We should see more and more perfect designs in nature as time progresses, and assuming a perfect designer as I'm sure these people want to eventually bring to the table, there should be no errors even in the initial designs, much less designs that follow after.

(4) Be said to typically NOT create completely functionless objects or parts (although we may sometimes think something is functionless, but not realize its true function).
Why typically? This sounds like a back door left in to avoid the argument being used against design, since there are definite functionless objects and parts of organisms alive today ( a nod to Oolon here and point 3).

Now onto the predictions...

Predictions of Intelligent Design
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.9
Again, not indistinguishable from natural processes that would create the same structures through co-opting of structures that had alternate previous functions.

(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.10
Except this isn't any indication of design. There are natural explanations that have evidence behind them, and don't require a great leap into the realm of the supernatural.

Our DNA is the strongest "fossil" record we have, and shows conclusively that all life is related and shares common descent. The fossils found in rock only serve to strengthen what we now know from our own genes.

(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.29
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".30
Essentially the same response as to points 3&4 above.

These robust predictions..

such as those regarding the identity of the designer.... Claims from creation science regarding the identity of the designer may be true, however they do not qualify as "scientific claims" (a claim need not be scientific to be true, it only need to be testable to be scientific--some claim which are true may not be empirically testable).
Blech. The problem is that without any identity for the designer, there is little science that can ever happen beyond the question they're already asking: Was it designed? For the sake of argument, let's say the answer came back "yes". Science stops at that point because now we are forced to speculate about that for which there is no evidence.

The answer, fortunately, has already come back, and it's "no".

Meyer uses the term "descent" to refer to all theories of origins which uphold the claim that all-life arose from non-life and is interrelated through ancestry through a purely unbroken naturalistic chain of events (one example is Darwinian evolution).
Then Meyer is misusing the term descent. The origin of life has nothing to do with whether or not once life was seeded by whatever means, it, through natural processes, resulted in all the descendants we see living today.

Meyer concludes that "design" and "descent" are actually epistemological equals: both are equally qualified as bona fida scientific theories:
Complete rubbish. ID is unable and unwilling at the present to even consider, at least publicly, the nature of the designer. Therefore, the intentions, habits and desired outcome of the design is unknowable. The designer could just as easily be a twisted prankster bent on creating creatures with malformations and disease as anything. Without knowing who the designer is, and for what intention life was designed, one cannot make any predictions or assumptions on what should expect to find in nature.

Descent holds no such caveats. There is no unknowable personality that must be understood before examining the evidence or making predictions. The process is based around testable and knowable natural processes. You can understand and determine most everything you need to know all the way back to abiogenesis.

Predictions of Descent
1. High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will NOT be found.9, 27, 31, 32, 33


Molecular phylogeny analysis of fiddler crabs: test of the hypothesis of increasing behavioral complexity in evolution.

Sturmbauer C, Levinton JS, Christy J.

Institute of Zoology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.

The current phylogenetic hypothesis for the evolution and biogeography of fiddler crabs relies on the assumption that complex behavioral traits are assumed to also be evolutionary derived. Indo-west Pacific fiddler crabs have simpler reproductive social behavior and are more marine and were thought to be ancestral to the more behaviorally complex and more terrestrial American species. It was also hypothesized that the evolution of more complex social and reproductive behavior was associated with the colonization of the higher intertidal zones. Our phylogenetic analysis, based upon a set of independent molecular characters, however, demonstrates how widely entrenched ideas about evolution and biogeography led to a reasonable, but apparently incorrect, conclusion about the evolutionary trends within this pantropical group of crustaceans. Species bearing the set of "derived traits" are phylogenetically ancestral, suggesting an alternative evolutionary scenario: the evolution of reproductive behavioral complexity in fiddler crabs may have arisen multiple times during their evolution. The evolution of behavioral complexity may have arisen by coopting of a series of other adaptations for high intertidal living and antipredator escape. A calibration of rates of molecular evolution from populations on either side of the Isthmus of Panama suggest a sequence divergence rate for 16S rRNA of 0.9% per million years. The divergence between the ancestral clade and derived forms is estimated to be approximately 22 million years ago, whereas the divergence between the American and Indo-west Pacific is estimated to be approximately 17 million years ago
What is this behavior they are referring to?

We have shown experimentally that structures build by male fiddler crabs attract mate sampling females. Such preferences usually are thought to arise and be maintained by selection that is a consequence of mating males with the preferred trait. In this case, however, our studies strongly suggest that structures co-opt for mate choice a response that is selected by predation. Through field experiments we have shown that structures are attractive to males and females of species who don't build them, that females of structure building species do not prefer the structures built by males of their own species and that natural objects such a stones, shells and bits of wood are as attractive or more attractive than are male-built structures. Together the evidence indicates that male built structures elicit landmark orientation, the tendency of fiddler crabs to move toward and hide behind objects when they are at risk moving on the surface away from burrows, as are mate sampling females. Females who approach structures may benefit directly by reducing their mate search costs. We have shown that structure building is a condition-dependent trait suggesting that females may also benefit indirectly by mating structure builders. However such possible indirect benefits appear to be a fortuitous effect, rather than a cause of the evolution of the differential response to structures.

Deceit in animal communication.
Fiddler crabs frequently use deception in both courtship and competitive interactions. Currently, our studies on this topic include the use by male Uca musica of displays that startle females into their burrows to mate, as do avian predators, and the construction by juvenile female Uca beebei of mud chimneys that elevate their burrow opening above the visual field of competitors, primarily juvenile males, and thereby hide their burrow allowing these females to maintain burrow ownership without having to defend their burrow in a fight they are sure to loose.
There are numerous other examples of extremely complex behavior and structures that are irreducible in their current form arising from previous structures used in different ways.

2. Forms will appear in the fossil record as a gradual progression with transitional series.34
As they do.

3. Genes and functional parts will reflect those inherited through ancestry, and are only shared by related organisms.
As they do.

4. The genetic code will contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".
As it does. It also includes shared errors.

Darwin himself realized that there were certain types of biological structures which Darwinian evolution simply couldn't create.

The catch to all of this is that changes must occur at a very slow pace, one little mutation at a time.
False. Multiple mutations may happen, and single mutations may have much more dramatic phylogenic effects than what is implied here.

Also, biological systems produced by evolution must be functional (i.e. confer some benefit to the organism) at every little step along their evolutionary path.
No. They must not pose a detriment to reproduction in order to be selected for. They may be accidentally kept around because they offer no advantage or disadvantage due to things like drift.

3 While these sorts of explanations still leave the details to the dice and lack strong explanatory power, it should be noted that evolutionists have not allowed their theory to be falsified. As long as there is some protein with some homology to some part in the irreducibly complex structure, evolutionists believe it could have been put their through some combination of gene duplication, co-optation, and micromutation. Thus, evolution makes essentially untestable claims of high improbability to explain the origin of irreducibly complex systems. (See our Irreducible Complexity Page and Nonfunctional Intermediates Page for more details on these issues.)
Just because one particular form of argument fails against the theory of common descent does not mean the entirety of the theory is un-falsifiable. There are things that have been pointed out numerous times here on this board that would falsify the theory of evolution as we know it.

.... Only within intelligent design theory is specified complexity, and a special case of specified complexity--irreducible complexity--found. Thus, at this point, intelligent design theory exclusively predicts that specified complex information will be found.
Of course. I would add however that I doubt anyone can even define what they mean by specified complexity in biology. That makes it rather difficult to find.

Skipping over a great load of bovine feces.

However, it is well recognized in the field of classification (systematics) that very often phylogenetic trees based upon one gene or protein sequence, will lead to one tree, while a tree based upon some other biomolecule will look quite different.
This argument is infuriating and shows a remarkable lack of understanding as to what exactly is being tested when these separate sequences are examined. The trees are not quite different. They differ, but only in details, not in the broad scope. In no way does this destroy common descent.

"[m]olecular phylogenists will have failed to find the 'true tree,' not because their methods are inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree."7 Yet, evolution predicts that molecular data should allow a phylogenetic "tree of life" to be reconstructed. Descent, apparently, has been falsified.

As Doolittle indicates, from the base of the tree of life, it is not "tree-like." In the "bush" below (Figure 3), it is impossible to reconstruct such trees, as the observed distribution of characters create something which looks more like a tangled thicket or a bush. The three major "domains" of life--Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya have a distribution of characteristics which does not allow a tree to be constructed to describe their alleged ancestral relationships. ..... Just as the case with punctuated equilibrium, descent becomes unfalsifiable with respect to molecular phylogenetic trees.
Again, evolution and phylogeny at the levels discussed here isn't relevant to more complex organisms. Lateral gene transfer and other idiosyncrasies make building this tree impossible at the base. However, going back from any modern point, mammals for instance, back to a very, very distant past is possible because mammals, reptiles and the like don't accidentally share genes by brushing into each other.

The father of molecular systematics Carl Woese found that conflicts in phylogenies are present not only at the base of the tree, saying, "[p]hylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, form its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves."21
This quote is clearly out of context and is being used to say something it does not. He was speaking specifically to finding a single common ancestor for all of life.

For example, de Jong noted that,"the wealth of competing morphological, as well as molecular proposals [of] the prevailing phylogenies of the mammalian orders would reduce [the mammalian tree] to an unresolved bush, the only consistent clade probably being the grouping of elephants and sea cows.12"
This is pointing out the difficulties in classifying organisms based on morphology alone, not that there is some problem with common descent that cannot be resolved. Morphology is a result of genes, but not always the same genes. Convergent evolution is responsible for nature finding various methods to achieve the same results.

This goes against the idea of a common designer, even as stated in this article! If the morphologies are the same, why would the designer use various genes to achieve the same results? This makes sense in light of how evolution works, but not design.

Some studies have tried to analyze the general relationships between animals and vertebrate groups through molecular data. One study analyzed molecular data from 10 different vertebrates and found that using different mitochondrial genes, twenty different disagreeing phylogenetic trees were produced, which differed at both recent and ancient divergence points.23 Brown and Naylor24 ....pattern of different genes yielding very different phylogenetic trees is very common in the scientific literature, and shows that molecular data fail to give a consistent picture of the alleged common descent ancestry of organisms.
As shown here: http://www.evolutionsbiologie.uni-ko...e/pdf/P059.pdf

This research into mtDNA as a method of determining phylogenic trees is still in its infancy. There are methods that work, but not all methods produce the same results. This is more than likely a flaw with the testing mechanisms, or perhaps a mistake in exactly how the tree should be designed, but not with the theory of common descent. Even with these problems, the results that are returned [b]do not falsify common descent[/i], but instead support it with slightly different trees than what is expected and found in other tests.

On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the best way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history.15
DNA is the only definitive relic we have that traces all the way back to our earliest common ancestor. It has precedence over morphology comparisons in that regard. However, there are reasons why DNA, when compared against morphology, may be less accurate.

Selection happens on exposed traits in organisms, not necessarily in the molecular structure responsible for those traits. Therefore, mutations and evolution can occur in the background on ancestors while maintaining the same morphological traits. This would make the anatomical comparisons more accurate than comparing DNA and genes in those cases.

This still does not falsify common descent. There are clear and undeniable indicators that all life shares a common ancestor at some point in the far distant past. To point to differences in trees as evidence against evolution is ridiculous. It would be like pointing to several snowflakes, and claiming that because each one is not identical, frozen water does not turn into snowflakes.

........[my insert: lots of junk about "junk" DNA]....
One study found that noncoding DNA could actually provide necessary structural material to physically maintain a larger size for a cell.39

An extensive discussion of examples of functionality of previously alleged "Junk DNA" can be found at When "Junk" DNA Isn't Junk (
Of course not all "junk" DNA will be found to be useless. However, not all junk DNA will be found to have a use either.

Even in the cases where this junk DNA is found to have a purpose, again, like the argument with irreducible complexity, this function of the junk DNA is more likely a result of being co-opted than it is a matter of being designed that way. The argument that because it has a function, not related to the production of proteins, it therefore was designed for that function is like claiming shipwrecks that provide a home to sea life were designed for that purpose.

Kuhn recognized that in the face of disconfirming evidence, scientists would much rather "explain away" the inconsistent data through some "auxiliary hypothesis" than to simply disregard the paradigm.
Completely wrong. There is far more fame and personal satisfaction found in discovering new theories and overturning old theories than in confirming someone else’s work.

For example, before Copernicus developed the heliocentric model of our solar system, most scientists believed that the planets and the sun revolved around the earth. Yet many astronomers of the time noticed that planets sometimes exhibited "retrograde motion" .....that these "retrograde epicycles" were merely the result of the earth's annual orbit around the sun.
And which particular superstitions were responsible for holding onto this nonsense in spite of the evidence against it? *sighs*

Amazing how suddenly they turn every discovery of science into a triumph of religious scientific pursuit in the face of evil dogmatic naturalists. In truth, they are consistently the group responsible for standing in the way of scientific progress because it encroaches on their superstitious mythology.

Since the time of Darwin, evolutionists have known about the weaknesses of the theory of evolution and descent with modification.41 Yet, they have not abandoned it simply because they say, "it's the best theory we've got".
Partially true. The weaknesses of the theory are greatly exaggerated in this statement though. The theory is surprisingly strong, withstanding over a century of intense criticism resulting in only shifts in it's framework and not the entire abandonment of the theory.

Today, biologists have a new and growing theory of life's origin: intelligent design. As intelligent design theory matures and develops as a scientific theory, evolution may not be the "best" any longer, and the "design hypothesis" may once again be considered as a viable explanation for the origins of lifeforms on earth.
No, creationists have a new name for their pet project of proselytizing our children. Biologists don't want anything to do with this waste of time.

Evolutionists currently resolve the discrepancies between its predictions and the data through "ad hoc" hypotheses. However, if evolution cannot explain the data over time, then there is nothing wrong with appealing to a theory which can.
I'm glad this site comes with a healthy reservoir of irony meters.

Thus, it can be seen from this document that intelligent design theory makes empirically-based predictions, which are matched in the data.
Not even close. This document shows the lengths at which someone will go in order to reinforce their religion in the face of evidence to the contrary. They will twist and manipulate the work of reputable men and women to advance their goals, and practice deceit to convince the uneducated.
Xixax is offline  
Old 08-15-2003, 01:49 AM   #5
Regular Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The People's Republic of West Yorkshire
Posts: 498

Originally posted by Xixax
The designer could just as easily be a twisted prankster bent on creating creatures with malformations and disease as anything.
Hey! I think you've got it! There is an intelligent designer and He is pissed! All hail Loki!
markfiend is offline  
Old 08-15-2003, 08:36 AM   #6
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 9,747
Default Re: "Design vs. Descent: A war of predictions" Check this one out!

Originally posted by Prof
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.

(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.

(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.

(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".
The problem is, ID does not predict these things. ID may be compatible with these things (because it's compatible with everything), but it does not predict them such that the opposite would qualify as a falsification.

Take #1. It's true that if life were designed, it might contain IC structures with high information content. But then again it might not. There is no reason why a designer must make IC structures. For example, a hammer is not IC, and it doesn't have much in information (however it's defined), but we know it's designed. If IC were really a prediction of ID, then we would have to conclude that a hammer was not designed.

And what about #2? Why should an IDist who accepts common ancestry, like Behe, expect that forms would appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any precursors?

The others follow the same pattern. They are not actually predictions of design. They are, at best, falsifications of one or more aspects of evolutionary theory.

I actually agree with Luskin when it comes to his claim that "many forms of "creation science" make a variety of predictions which are empirically testable." It's true. YEC for example does make empirically testable claims, which is how we can easily tell it's false. ID is not among them however. It does not make any emprically testable claims, because it won't commit itself to any set of basic propositions about biology or Earth history. How old the Earth is, whether or not organisms have shared ancestry, whether or not natural selection is capable of causing adaptation -- ID doesn't make a commitment to any of these. It makes no claim other than "design", whatever it is, exists somewhere in the biotic world. There is no way of telling from this basic premise what it is that we expect to see in biology or Earth history.

theyeti is offline  
Old 08-16-2003, 09:36 PM   #7
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,450

I want to thank everyone who responded! I would have posted sooner but the wonderful "rolling power blackouts" in these parts held me up.

You guys are masters of the detailed, informed, well-reasoned post!

Prof is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:56 PM.


This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.