ResearchID is a Wiki devoted to Intelligent Design Creationism. One of the pages conatins Predictions of intelligent design. Let's see what kind of "predictions" you can generate by postulating a supernatural creator who's in charge of designing life.
It's really hard to sort though the gobbledygook to find solid predictions but I think I've found four that count as partially scientific. For each of them I'll quote the ReseardID.org prediction in yellow. My prediction follows.
Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions.The classic Darwinist prediction about junk DNA would be that none of it is really junk. That's because classic Darwinism attributes selectable function to almost everything and there's no place for things that have evolved by accident. My prediction is that most junk DNA will always be junk. That is, it has no function in the cell and is free to evolve randomly by accumulating mutations that become fixed by random genetic drift.
Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).Based on my understanding of evolutionary biology I also predict that we will continue to discover natural structures that look like molecular machines. Such structures will be complex and they will catalyze highly specific reactions. This is exactly what we expect of an evolved structure.
In general, vestigial organs (sic) will yield some function for the organism.Many vestigial structures such as rudimentary eyes in cave-dwelling fish, tiny wings on flightless beetles, small useless hind limbs within the body of whales, wisdom teeth that fail to erupt, and pseudogenes, will continue to provide evidence for evolution and evidence against an "intelligent" designer.
The correlation between habitability and discovery will strengthen.IDiots will continue to say the stupidest things in an effort to sound scientific.
33 comments :
IDiot... I get it! ID+iot = idiot. Wow, you brights are so smart! And witty too!
Larry,
Thank you for blogging about our predictions page. I find it notable that you say we postulate "a supernatural creator who's in charge of designing life." Yet, we postulate intelligence as an observable, not any supernatural entity.
Please identify where on our site we postulate a supernatural creator. If there is such a citation, I will clarify the issue, since that is not our method of investigation.
Kindest Regards,
Joey
Please identify where on our site we postulate a supernatural creator.
What else but a supernatural creator is going to decide where our "privileged planet" is supposed to go? Who are you trying to kid? Anyway, if you're having some trouble finding anything about a supernatural creator on your wiki, then just do a search for "God" in that search bar thingy you have there.
Oops, maybe nobody is postulating that "God" is a supernatural creator. Sorry about that!
“Please identify where on our site we postulate a supernatural creator. If there is such a citation, I will clarify the issue, since that is not our method of investigation.”
Er… Joey, don't insult our intelligence. Be honest now, are you really saying that your ‘Intelligent designer’ isn’t a supernatural entity? In which case, who or what do you think is the ‘intelligent designer’?
A space-alien genetic engineer might be OK in a bad episode of Star Trek, but your fundamentalist Christian friends would be very disappointed if that’s what you really did believe.
386sx,
A search for "God" in our search bar shows many pages discussing the idea of god, including pages where we explicitly and clearly say that our methods of investigation do not make any claims concerning any supernatural entities.
Please identify where on our site we postulate a supernatural creator. If there is such a citation, I will clarify the issue, since our methods of investigation include no such thing.
I think more important part is what the "prediction" is.
Predictions are like information; Which more it contains "useful information", that more it "tells us which happend not". If ID can't tell us which is impossible to designer, it actually not explain anything..
Seriously Joey. Come on, cards on the table and all that...
I'm genuinely curious. What do you believe about the identity of the 'Intelligent designer'?
Anonymous,
"I think more important part is what the "prediction" is.
Predictions are like information; Which more it contains "useful information", that more it "tells us which happend not". If ID can't tell us which is impossible to designer, it actually not explain anything..
Sunday, February 18, 2007 1:57:00 PM
I certainly agree with your analysis, if you mean to say that intelligence is a very difficult topic to tackle. New means of analyzing and synthesizing some data will have to be developed for the areas where ID has applicability.
Funny thing is, if you apply your logical framework to certain aspects of chance and necessity, you may glean ideas that many find uncomfortable. And if you tell others about your framework, you will be accused of supernaturalism, even if you stated and made clear how you were not. To boot, if you are a scientist or a professor without protected status, you will be harassed and probably lose your job for even thinking within the very framework which you have presented here.
Tony,
My beliefs are irrelevant to the evidence. At ResearchID.org, we have begun to look at the evidence.
It matters not to me whether the evidence indicates that life was purely an accident, if life was fated by the laws of nature, or if the universe itself is a quantum computer that produces living beings at some regular interval.
"Certainly agree with your analysis, if you mean to say that intelligence is a very difficult topic to tackle."
You are trying to say, that evolution does predict anything, but ID:s main system is "not 'natural cause' therefore Design" -> and if that "natural cause" is something that leads in
"if you apply your logical framework to certain aspects of chance and necessity, you may glean ideas that many find uncomfortable", it kills ID, too.
And next you are off course saying that evolution can not generate IC or TMI or such. And tell us that we can detect those things in nature... Wow.
Joey: "At ResearchID.org, we have begun to look at the evidence."
Oh really? And what does the evidence say?
Sorry, TMI=CSI (not TV show anyway)..
But it is quite fun that "evolution can not generate something" and "evolution can explain anything" at the same time. Which one it is? Is evolution unfalsifiable "ad hoc" or have we find problems for it?
Anonymous,
I am having a bit of trouble with your English, but I appreciate your effort to dialog on this point, I think it is an important one.
You are trying to say, that evolution does predict anything
I am not saying this. I am an evolutionist. Please show me where I said evolution predicts everything. My point was that if you have a scientific investigation where a particular cause is granted full immunity from the framework you have proposed, then it is no longer useful. You are correct, though. Your framework applies to evolution as well as ID.
, but ID:s main system is "not 'natural cause' therefore Design" -> and if that "natural cause" is something that leads in "if you apply your logical framework to certain aspects of chance and necessity, you may glean ideas that many find uncomfortable", it kills ID, too.
I agree, your framework applies to evolution as well as ID.
And next you are off course saying that evolution can not generate IC or TMI or such. And tell us that we can detect those things in nature... Wow.
Please remind me where I said this.
Anonymous,
But it is quite fun that "evolution can not generate something" and "evolution can explain anything" at the same time. Which one it is? Is evolution unfalsifiable "ad hoc" or have we find problems for it?
You are proposing a false dilemma. Any explanation, on the one hand, and reality, on the other, can often be two different things.
Why are you criticizing evolution so vehemently?
Joey,
If your site does not in any way posit a deity as the intelligent designer in question, please give us your appraisal of the following quotes from the work of leading ID proponent William Dembski, and how his views dovetail (or don't) with your own.
-----
"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God." - Science Test, Church & State Magazine, July/August 2000.
"If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient." --From the book Intelligent Design, the Bridge Between Science and Theology
"But there are deeper motivations. I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed...And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he's done - and he's not getting it." - address given at Fellowship Baptist Church, Waco, Texas, March 7, 2004
---
Also, whether your site proposes a designer that's supernatural or not, do you provide any evidence of who or what designed it?
Is it really a "false dilemma"?
Is it not that ID build it's explanations "not natural -> Design"?
If it is building it that way, then it is not;
The crucial question, which need get answer is "how detect things which are not generated naturally" is its deepest heart, and if it can not do that, then it is impossible to detect design.
Evolution and other natural explanations are not "eliminating processes". Gravitation is not "eliminating intelligent puller" and such. That is the reason.
And that is what we can not forget.
So, the difference in "different paradigms" are that we can not really say which is impossible for Designer(OK, if it is human or such, we actually can say, but if Designer's intelligency's abilities are "unknow", then...)
Evolution predict's *in itself*, through it's process (I quote an guy wiser than me):
"Based on our standard phylogenetic tree, we may expect to find gill pouches or egg shells at some point in mammalian embryonic development (and we do). However, we never expect to find nipples, hair, or a middle-ear incus bone at any point in fish, amphibian, or reptilian embryos. Likewise, we might expect to find teeth in the mouths of some avian embryos (as we do), but we never expect to find bird-like beaks in eutherian mammal embryos (eutherians are placental mammals such as humans, cows, dogs, or rabbits). We may expect to find human embryos with tails (and we do), but we never expect to find leg buds or developing limbs in the embryos of manta rays, eels, teleost fish, or sharks. Any such findings would be in direct contradiction to macroevolutionary theory."
(Scott F. Gilbert,"Developmental Biology",1997)
And ID, it is not predicting "in itself" anything, it is building all it's explanations through the evolution theory, (like: "If we find bird-like beaks in eutherian mammal embryos -> Designer")
Tony,
Oh really? And what does the evidence say?
If I knew the answer I would not have a website investigating your question. If I knew the evidence was null and empty regarding ID, I would be at TalkReason. If I knew with certainty that the evidence pointed in favor of ID, I would be at town hall demanding that my school board teach it. But I am doing neither; I am in a mid-point. The evidence seems to indicate that what we see in the universe did not come about by randomness and blind regularity, but only a scientific investigation, using tools of past research, and new tools and new concepts currently being developed, can help us decide what the evidence is saying.
What counts as evidence for any given proposition is currently a heavily disputed point. I am encouraged that there are still many things science needs to learn before I can interpret the evidence. This provides me with great motivation to continue investigating the evidence, for and against ID.
That being said, I think the history of science has many interesting points about the design paradigm. Molecular biology is instructive for looking at the evidence. Information theory also provides valuable insights.
I am sure we will uncover more interesting historically and scientifically relevant points as our investigation continues.
Martin,
I already answered your question on this point. To answer your newly rephrased version of the same question, I am not William Dembski, and nor are my views and his the same thing. I will not reproduce here an in-depth analysis of whether I agree with Dembski or not. I do not agree with Dembski on every point he addresses in your message.
Intelligent design is an investigation of physical evidence. Physical evidence alone cannot be wielded to make a conclusion about whether there is a God, or whether he is benevolent. A cell is a very intricate phenomenon with many parts working in harmony to allow growth and reproduction. What about a cell indicates “God”? Other ways of reasoning, like philosophy and epistemology, are used to build up to the conclusion of the existence or non-existence of God.
Any morning now, I might wake up and realize that I have been transformed by some quantum flux into William Dembski. At that point, I will render an explanation for his words. Until then his words are his, and if you want to know what I think, go to ResearchID.org, I agree with almost all of the material there. Or, feel free to email me through my Blogger profile by clicking on my name at the top of my posts here.
"Any morning now, I might wake up and realize that I have been transformed by some quantum flux into William Dembski. At that point, I will render an explanation for his words. Until then his words are his, and if you want to know what I think, go to ResearchID.org, I agree with almost all of the material there."
That "almost" must mean text, which have been used in this "blogline".
"Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information)."
If you are not builded the argument over "not natural -> Design", then what it is?
What predictions you can actually make assuming an unknown "intelligend agent" - even natural? - Or are they just the "hidden Dembski and Behe -stuff"?
Anonymous,
The false dilemma that I am addressing is the idea that "evolution can not generate something" and "evolution can explain anything." There are more options than only those two.
Again I am having trouble seeing your precise point, but I think you suffer from a common misconception that ID and evolution are at odds. They are not. For more on this, see MikeGene's work at IDthink.net
Anonymous,
On the predictions, see here. It is useful to remember that Darwin had no mechanisms or predictions about the physical workings of two of his key propositions: random variation and inheritance. The underlying mechanisms, like DNA and epigenetics, were not known experimentally until almost a century later. Some ideas take time. I think ID is one of these ideas that will take time. Especially given that people entertaining a thought are being harassed and excused for speaking heresy.
You may disagree, and I respect your freedom to disagree. Please accord me the same respect and freedom.
Everyone,
Thank you all for your enlightening questions. I must go now, but I invite anyone here who has more questions for me to come to ResearchID.org and post their questions at my personal page, or on the talk page of the article on the particular topic.
Best,
Joey
Maybe I was hard to understand, sorry, My main argument is, that as far as I know the metodology, which you have used in predictions ; How we can say that something is not designed, and that is major part in explanatory force.
If "natural and design" are not "on/off", which is the way to make the predictions = How you deside that something is proof and which is "disproof".
Darwin has two hypothetic mechanisms(variation+heritability) are, and we actually have found how "our physical world works on his key propositions" Of course we have found some elements more.
I respect your free of thought, wery much actually, and I am actually quite intrested to get en "public answer" in one Guestion, which is; Which are the key propositions of design, which are your "heritability and variation"?
Joey Campana says,
I find it notable that you say we postulate "a supernatural creator who's in charge of designing life." Yet, we postulate intelligence as an observable, not any supernatural entity.
And they wonder why I call them IDiots?
I'm sure they have lots of observations of the Intelligence, but, you know, all the good stuff is embargoed until the papers are in press. You know how those journals are. I mean, that must be it- right?
The technological successes of Biomimicry will continue.
How is that prediction in any way related to ID?
Designed phenomena will be found in environments where order and organization are not likely to arise by random or unifunctional natural means.
You'll have to establish that phenomona are "designed" before you can claim that one. Hey, there are a few moon buggies that got left behind on the moon. Is that what you're talking about?
Perhaps life will be found where the habitat is hostile to the emergence of life, or the environment is generally sterile to biological life.
And natural selection doesn't predict that?
The correlation between habitability and discovery will strengthen. See Privileged Planet for more on this.
I think you're wrong about that. The correlation between habitability and discovery is 1.0, and will remain there, not strengthen (Which is mathematically impossible). So far we know only one planet in the Universe that is habitable, and everything we have ever discovered is discoverable from there.
Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
Well, a clear prediction, and one not made by evolutionary biology. Too bad it's contrary to all known evidence. Let us know when you find that Precambrian rabbit.
Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.
Where are you going to find unrelated organisms to carry out those experiments?
"Yet, we postulate intelligence as an observable, not any supernatural entity."
Who are you trying to fool here? Intelligent creators of life ultimately ends up being supernatural by way of regress and the finite time of the universe. It is also well known that when IDiots confess to discuss theories they identify the mechanism as supernatural.
"Please identify where on our site we postulate a supernatural creator."
I'm sure this is only a jest:
"God-of-the-Gaps [...] This page about God-of-the-Gaps is a stub. Please help us make this article by contributing the missing information.
This template is intended to be used as the infusion template for new research applications on ResearchID.org." ( http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/God-of-the-Gaps )
It is like "Of Pandas and People" - the creationist purpose is revealed for all eternity.
"Too bad it's contrary to all known evidence."
It is worse, it is contrary to a well established theory that predicts the phylogenetic trees which have been found so many times.
It is not only a non-starter, it is a falsification of the so called prediction. Of course, since there is nothing that says a creator needs to oblige these creationist 'theorists', it isn't a real prediction. ID is non-falsifiable by fiat (no mechanisms means no predictivity). That is a non-starter.
I'm sure this is only a jest:
"God-of-the-Gaps [...] This page about God-of-the-Gaps is a stub. Please help us make this article by contributing the missing information.
Nice find. Oh, the irony.
Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/02/elliott_sober_w.html
Why would they predict that junk DNA turns out to perform valuable functions if they don't care about whether or not the designer is an infallible supernatural designing thingy? How do they know the designer wouldn't make junk DNA? IDiots, indeed. Lol, they look stupider and stupider every day thanks to the real scientists out there. God bless you all.
My most recent predictions have not been posted at The Design Paradigm. I don't know if thye have started censoring, or whether they're just slow about approving comments.
One prediction was that we will not find a black obelisk on the moon. This was in reference to a prediction made by ID shill Cornelius Hunter when he appeared at Cornell University and was pressed to name any predictions made by ID.
Another prediction was that cats will not give birth to puppies, and that if a cat ever shows up with a litter of puppies, careful investigation would show adoption to be a more likely possibility than an "ID event."
Post a Comment