tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post4179870813801391675..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Does Intelligent Design Creationism Make Scientific Predictions?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34401671551728214882009-04-28T16:43:00.000-04:002009-04-28T16:43:00.000-04:00I think the question is whether or not any ID theo...I think the question is whether or not any <I>ID theory</I> yields predictions. I haven't seen any.<br /><br />IDists make "predictions," of course, but these always look like attempts to simply take over known facts for their beliefs. <br /><br />A real prediction of ID would be like the one Paley made, that life would have the features produced by architects and artificers. <br /><br />What's interesting is that Paley actually faulted evolutionary theories of his day for being unfalsifiable (he used different language), while his own claims were, at least in essence, falsifiable. Unfortunately for him, they were falsified by Darwin.<br /><br />Today's ID can't predict that irreducible complexity won't evolve. It has nothing with which to predict that. Nor can it speak to "junk DNA". Both Behe's and Barry's "predictions" are dependent upon evolutionary theory for any meaning (though they distort it), and do not flow from ID at all--except to the extent that ID is a way of lying about evolution and about "design".<br /><br /><A HREF="http://electricconsciousness.tripod.com" REL="nofollow">Glen Davidson</A>Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15647353309370269220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81609151663589142282009-04-26T09:28:00.000-04:002009-04-26T09:28:00.000-04:00Claims of predicting function in junkDNA by ID adv...Claims of predicting function in junkDNA by ID advocates starting in the mid to late 1980s and up to 2004 is just plain bullshit.<br /><br />Even Denton's supposed 'predictions' were pre-dated by actual research publications going back to 1975 (and well before when different nomenclature was used).<br /><br />These people are just trying to puff up their religious pulp by accepting accolades for something they did not do.Doppelgangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77895632401732490002009-04-25T22:40:00.000-04:002009-04-25T22:40:00.000-04:00Quite aside from predictions, IDC is not science b...Quite aside from predictions, IDC is not science because it provides no testable mechanism for how the "intelligent agency" manipulates DNA sequences, etc. It's one long argument from incredulity.James Fnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74454506150335829452009-04-25T20:23:00.000-04:002009-04-25T20:23:00.000-04:00Just because an IDiot makes a predition does not m...Just because an IDiot makes a predition does not mean that it is one that necessarily flows from the ID theory; any more than a prediction of the utility (or lack of utility) of "junk DNA" by a real biologist means it's a prediction of the MToE.<br /><br />Indeed, although I don't know what the ID theory actually is (like everyone else, even the IDiots), I don't see where they would have a problem if the evidence shows that junk DNA really is just junk.<br /><br />(Of course, if the IDiots would actually put out a detailed comprehensive theory that is capable of generating testable predictions, we would know for sure. Fat chance that happens in my lifetime.)Divalentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42641429560470969992009-04-25T20:08:00.000-04:002009-04-25T20:08:00.000-04:00The crux of the biscuit is not whether a theory or...The crux of the biscuit is not whether a theory or school makes predictions, or whether those predictions are fulfilled and contradicted: every scientific discipline is littered with failed hypotheses.<br /><br />The real issue is how the discipline <I>responds</I> to failed predictions. A good discipline uses the failure to become <I>narrower</I>, to make new predictions that are even more specific, rooting as deeply as is necessary to make more specific predictions. A poor discipline responds to failures by becoming <I>broader</I>, by making <I>less</I> specific predictions.<br /><br />We've seen the latter from ID: as each of their predictions have become falsified, the "science" has made broader predictions, pushing observational confirmation to difficult-to-test experiments, or "conclusions" that are impossible in principle to falsify.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21774122602111645572009-04-25T19:52:00.000-04:002009-04-25T19:52:00.000-04:00I should emphasise that I responded to "It is ofte...I should emphasise that I responded to <I>"It is often claimed that Intelligent Design Creationism doesn't make predictions"</I> and not what their FAQ commentary starts with, <I>"ID does not make <B>scientifically fruitful</B> predictions"</I>... (!)<br /><br />George wrote: <I>But of course, the subtle point that transcription of junk DNA does not mean functionality</I>Precisely. I was going to add a comment to that effect on their FAQ thread, but they as that you register, etc...Heraclidesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85275720457437710172009-04-25T19:42:00.000-04:002009-04-25T19:42:00.000-04:00I am surprised they didn't cite this:
Nature Gene...I am surprised they didn't cite this:<br /><br />Nature Genetics <br />Published online: 19 April 2009 | doi:10.1038/ng.368<br /><br />The regulated retrotransposon transcriptome of mammalian cells<br /><br />http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ng.368.html<br /><br />(authors too numerous to list)<br /><br />But of course, the subtle point that transcription of junk DNA does not mean functionality evades their reasoning.<br /><br />BTW, why is it that ID proponents are keen to cite ENCODE and FANTOM results but conveniently fail to mention the piRNA system?Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7837050676698833402009-04-25T19:40:00.000-04:002009-04-25T19:40:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54271990881393761502009-04-25T19:21:00.000-04:002009-04-25T19:21:00.000-04:00Thus, it is a matter of simple fact that scientist...<I>Thus, it is a matter of simple fact that scientists working in the ID paradigm <B>carry out and publish research,</B></I>How did reach this conclusion? <br /><br />1) Promote creationist chestnut<br />2) ???<br />3) Research!James Fnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51392107377819273252009-04-25T18:53:00.000-04:002009-04-25T18:53:00.000-04:00"It is often claimed that Intelligent Design Creat...<I>"It is often claimed that Intelligent Design Creationism doesn't make predictions."</I>I thought that what ID doesn't do is present a "theory" of ID. They certainly claim that "G-d did it", but beyond that they present nothing on how, evidence for it, etc. (To be fair, I suppose some would trot out a creation story, but has at least two problems: which creation story, and it's not "supposed" to be creationism [my understanding is that the whole reason for creating the ID movement was to create alternative to creationism for legal reasons]. It seems to me that they are stuck not able to present a "theory" of ID, in part, because to do so would reveal it to be creationism and thus that ID is a naked emperor.)<br /><br /><I>"show substantial functionality across the genome [...] including pseudogenes</I>Hello? Pseudogenes are now functional?! :-/ *Sigh*<br /><br /><I>"Even though they might be atheists, their prediction is the same as the creationists.</I>Nitpick: you shouldn't really link predictions, hypotheses, etc., to ideologies, they ought to stand independently of them ;-) IMO. But I suppose you're just trying to be controversial or get some people excited :-)<br /><br /><I>"I'm convinced that most of our genome is truly junk. I predict that the creationist prediction will turn out to be wrong. I wonder if it means that intelligent design creationism will be falsified?</I>I know where you're coming from, but you can always invent a reason to justify most things ;-)<br /><br />Personally, I prefer to focus on the structure of the genome (in the 3-D structure sense) and the processes involved and just let the various elements fall within that context however they do and just not get distracted. These days, anyway. Pragmatism as I get older?Heraclidesnoreply@blogger.com