Re: [asa] Demarcation was Re: thinking was prosecutors and not that of the judge

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Mon May 07 2007 - 12:49:18 EDT

IDers have claimed that ID 'predicted' that Junk DNA is not all junk.
Of course there are several problems with this a) they claim that Junk
DNA was a Darwinian prediction when in fact it was an observation
presented in support of neutral evolution b) evolutionists already had
discussed potential roles for Junk DNA and finally c) there is no
logical foundation for ID to have made this 'prediction'.

Remember that ID is based on inferring design based on complexity and
specification. Since Junk DNA has no specification, how can it lead to
a prediction. But at a deeper level, ID does not propose ANY
foundation for it to make positive predictions about anything. That's
because ID is inherently a negative argument. When creationists argued
that Junk DNA must have function, their 'prediction' was in response
to claims by scientists who showed how pseudogenes were better
explained by evolutionary processes. While ID is unable to state 'our
designer would not design junk', one could make an argument that God
would be far more tidy in his 'design' of humans and note waste all
this space with Junk. But that requires us to assume something about
the intentions of the designer and as ID points out, it cannot make
such inferences.

In other words, ID is totally unable to present ANY positive
prediction beyond 'well science will never be able to explain X,.
let's called X designed'...

Ryan Nichols has discussed the problems with ID in "Scientific
content, testability, and the vacuity of Intelligent Design theory"
The American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 2003 ,vol. 77 ,no 4
,pp. 591 - 611

<quote>
    Before I proceed, however, I note that Dembski makes an important
concession to his critics. He refuses to make the second assumption
noted above. When the EF implies that certain systems are
intelligently designed, Dembski does not think it follows that there
is some intelligent designer or other. He says that, "even though in
practice inferring design is the first step in identifying an
intelligent agent, taken by itself design does not require that such
an agent be posited. The notion of design that emerges from the design
inference must not be confused with intelligent agency" (TDI, 227, my
emphasis).
</quote>

On 5/7/07, Dave Wallace <wdwllace@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Maybe someone else knows of something testable that ID predicts then it
> would be interesting to know what it is. Even the "for all" sort or of
> the "never" will be explicable sort would be somewhat interesting. As
> best I can tell Behe's assertions about irreducible complexity in the
> cases he mentions in his book are being cast into more and more doubt,
> so one more assertion that feature X is irreducibly complex is not very
> interesting.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 7 12:49:43 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 07 2007 - 12:49:43 EDT