I'm reminded of the word "pathos" but I had to look it up to make sure I got it right. It means something that causes people to feel pity, sadness, or even compassion. It's the right word to describe what's happening. It's also similar to the word "pathetic."
Here's what's happening.
As you know, Barry Arrington claimed that the IDiots made a prediction. They predicted that there's no such thing as junk DNA. They predicted that most of our genome would turn out to have a function [Let’s Put This One To Rest Please]. That's much is true. It makes perfect sense because an Intelligent Design Creator wouldn't create a genome that was 90% junk.
I'm happy that the IDiots made such a prediction because it is definitely falsifiable and if our genome turns out to be full of junk, which it is, it means that Intelligent Design Creationism has been refuted. It's practically impossible for them to argue their way out of the fact that the human genome does not look anything like something that was intelligently designed. Bacterial flagella are trivial in comparison.
Intelligent Design Creationists Make a Prediction: How Did It Work Out?] Let me remind you what Barry Arrington said ...
For years Darwinists touted “junk DNA” as not just any evidence but powerful, practically irrefutable evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis. ID proponents disagreed and argued that the evidence would ultimately demonstrate function.This was in response to a claim made by Elizabeth Liddle that Intelligent Design Creationists don't make predictions. She was wrong about this. I'm not going to defend her on that point.
Not only did both hypotheses make testable predictions, the Darwinist prediction turned out to be false and the ID prediction turned out to be confirmed.
However, there's several things wrong with what Barry Arrington said in his post. The first is that "Darwinists" never predicted junk DNA. There were evolutionary biologists who predicted that most of our genome would not have a function but that prediction was based on the genetic load argument and the argument was made by scientists who understood neutral theory and random genetic drift. They were not "Darwinists." Most Darwinists—believers in the power of natural selection—were opposed to the idea of junk DNA. Many still are.
I've covered this issue ad nauseum. There's a summary at: Educating an Intelligent Design Creationist: The Meaning of Darwinism. I don't really expect the IDiots to give up their rhetorical advantage by dropping the term "Darwinist" but I do expect them to acknowledge that they've been listening when problems over terminology arise.
The second thing that's wrong with Barry Arrington's statement is that, in fact, junk DNA is alive and well. When Dan Graur and I spoke at the Chicago evolution meeting last July, I expected that the audience of evolutionary biologists would be hostile in light of the ENCODE publicity fiasco. Turns out that the vast majority of evolutionary biologists at that meeting conclude that most of our genome is junk. In other words, they see the evidence and they accept it in spite of what the ENCODE Consortium said.
This is encouraging. We are reaching a consensus on the existence of junk DNA and the consensus is that most of our genome is junk. Some may disagree but that does not mean that Barry Arrington is correct when he says, "... the Darwinist prediction turned out to be false and the ID prediction turned out to be confirmed." That's just false.
Here comes the fun part. Elizabeth Liddle had the audacity to post a comment on Uncommon Descent where she said.
Sorry Barry that that example simply does not work.What she meant, of course, is that Barry Arrington was wrong on two counts. "Darwinists" did not predict junk DNA and our genome is still mostly junk.
Darwinian theory would only predict unused sequences of DNA were it to be the case that unused sequences had no metabolic or other cost . . .
And I will be first in line to cite Darwinian hypotheses that have been falsified. But not the “junk DNA” hypothesis.
Elizabeth Liddle’s Revisionism is Astonishingly Audacious!. Rather than do a it of investigation, lawyer Barry Arrington doubles down. I'm going to quote what he says. If any of you have irony meters, this is the time to turn them off.
Barry Arrington says,
Dr. Liddle, have you no shame? All I can say is your revisionist history is stunning in its scope and audacity.Wow! Can you believe that! Does anyone still wonder why we call them IDiots?
Whole books were written by ID proponents about the Darwinist myth of junk DNA. See [The Myth of Junk DNA, by Jonathan Wells].
The ID position has now been largely vindicated and the Darwinist position debunked.
You know that. Therefore, I simply cannot imagine that you assert to the contrary in good faith. If I did not know better, charity would demand that I ascribe your statements to near invincible ignorance. Sadly, that option is not open to me. Therefore, I can only conclude that you are willfully and mendaciously misrepresenting the record.
You made a false statement in the prior post. I posted a second post calling you out. Instead of conceding or retracting you doubled down. Will you double down again or will you retract?
It gets even better. When Elizabeth Liddle posted a comment to this second post she was banned! That's right, she was banned from posting any more comments on Uncommon Descent [see Junk DNA on The Skeptical Zone]. Why is this amusing? See: Hypocrisy.
If you really want to see what Intelligent Design Creationists look like then you can do no better that read the rest of the comments on that post. It's a sorry sight. It reminds me of the word "pathos." It also brings to mind the word "pathetic."
I challenge Barry Arrington to take up this issue on Sandwalk where I promise not to ban him.