Casey Luskin: ID as fruitful approach to science

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 13, 2022

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In his Kitzmiller v. Dover testimony, biologist Kenneth Miller referred to intelligent design as a “science stopper.” Similarly, in his book Only a Theory, Miller stated, “The hypothesis of design is compatible with any conceivable data, makes no testable predictions, and suggests no new avenues for research. As such, it’s a literal dead end…”
Casey Luskin, “Science Stopper? Intelligent Design as a Fruitful Scientific Paradigm” at Evolution News (May 9, 2022)

Luskin offers a number of examples of areas where ID is a fruitful approach, including

Evolutionary computation: ID produces theoretical research into the information-generative powers of Darwinian searches, leading to the discovery that the search abilities of Darwinian processes are limited, which has practical implications for the viability of using genetic algorithms to solve problems.
Anatomy and physiology: ID predicts function for allegedly “vestigial” organs, structures, or systems whereas evolution has made many faulty predictions of nonfunction.
Bioinformatics: ID has helped scientists develop proper measures of biological information, leading to concepts like complex and specified information or functional sequence complexity. This allows us to better quantify complexity and understand what features are, or are not, within the reach of Darwinian evolution.
Casey Luskin, “Science Stopper? Intelligent Design as a Fruitful Scientific Paradigm” at Evolution News (May 9, 2022)

The trouble is, many people would just as soon that research into evolutionary computation anatomy and physiology, and bioinformatics, however fruitful, not be done if it undermines a comfortable Darwinism.

This is the 12th and final entry in Casey Luskin’s series, which is a modified excerpt from The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith: Exploring the Ultimate Questions About Life and the Cosmos (2021).

Incidentally, here are two hilarious vids about fake COVID news from Shanghai. Couldn’t think where to put it but wouldn’t want you to miss out.

Note: The content is available. The warning is part of the joke.

Comments

Fred: Science isn’t about desire, Querius; no matter how badly you desire it. Science is practiced by scientists, who are, unfortunately, humans with cognitive biases. Bias matters, and most people don't take the time to understand the issues well enough to see through the bullsh*t that is very often proffered in the name of "science." For example, it is claimed by some scientists that humans and chimps have a common ancestor. However, when you drill down into the details of such a claim, one finds that, probably the most important consideration on that topic, is the neurological "programming" differences between human and chimp brains. Any pronouncements about that subject is sheer hogwash, and no science exists that can plausibly back up the claim. Researchers don't even know the "what", let alone the "how." Science is good. Ad hoc claims and just so stories are not science. PaxxPaxx_{May 22, 2022
May
05
May
22
22
2022
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

The only thing people can do about climate change is decrease the population by more than half. Only people ignorant of physics think that CO2 drives climate.ET_{May 22, 2022
May
05
May
22
22
2022
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Weekend away curtailed by invasion of Medosozoa. Climate change becomes harder to ignore on a daily basis. What have I missed? Querius must be taking a break too.Fred Hickson_{May 22, 2022
May
05
May
22
22
2022
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

Evidence. It's all that matters.Paxx_{May 21, 2022
May
05
May
21
21
2022
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

Science isn't about desire, Querius; no matter how badly you desire it. Simply it is observation of phenomena, then experimenting and hypothesis testing to come up with more accurate explanations for observed phenomena. Emotions are real and powerful and can take humans on interesting journeys but it's not science.Fred Hickson_{May 19, 2022
May
05
May
19
19
2022
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @375, So true! I think the difficulty you mention is due to two ideological commitments (aka ideological poisoning): 1. The desire to declare everything in science solved and static. 2. The desire to rationalize a philosophy of deterministic materialism. So, the science fiction that they can all agree on is far more comforting than the fear of the dislocation caused by new theories or new paradigms, which in turn pale by comparison of the terror in the potential of being confronted by moral responsibility to a Creator. Thus, even to consider relaxing these commitments becomes unthinkable to them. -QQuerius_{May 19, 2022
May
05
May
19
19
2022
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT}

Querius
Sometimes a theory is bad enough not to wait for a replacement, but just to throw it out and say we don’t know. Truthful confession is healing not only to the soul, but also to the sciences.
I'm seeing more materialists say they don't know - at least about origin of life. They might even say it about some aspects of evolution, but it's not enough yet to get rid of the theory. It's still too difficult to be fully truthful. Too much has been invested in Darwin for that.Silver Asiatic_{May 19, 2022
May
05
May
19
19
2022
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

Sandy/367
There is no doubt about the function of DNA (and darwinists can’t get rid of 10-30 -40 years of brainwashing just by reading the truth) and I would guess that there other 20% that was not detected with activity by ENCODE has been active in embrionary life participating to build the organism and then turned off after birth. So probably it’s 110% ? functional and not junk . Only ignorance (or malice )about complexity of life would make someone “to predict” junk DNA .
If you read more of Larry Moran's blog, you will see that, not only is there doubt about the functionality of 80% of the genome, there is fierce debate about what is actually meant by "function" in this context. As for the malice, it is clearly coming from some in the neo-Paleyist camp who fear what they perceive as a threat to their religious presuppositions.Seversky_{May 19, 2022
May
05
May
19
19
2022
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @371, There have been many unsuccessful attempts at dislodging the good ship Biology from the rocks of racist Darwinism. Some of these failed attempts have been ridiculed and then resurrected in versions resembling those of Lamarck's and those of Cairns-Smith's 1982 Clay Hypothesis. https://www.frozenevolution.com/clay-hypothesis-origin-life https://news.rpi.edu/content/2016/09/06/origin-life-rna-world-deep-beneath-surface However, one characteristic of a weak or problematic theory is characterized either by extreme plasticity or extreme ossification. Darwinism exhibits both extremes in my opinion: the plasticity of being able to rationalize any unpredicted and surprising findings, and to remain generally stable since the mid 1800s despite massive falsifying data. All the other sciences have gone through or are going through major upheavals--all except for biological evolution. Sometimes a theory is bad enough not to wait for a replacement, but just to throw it out and say we don't know. Truthful confession is healing not only to the soul, but also to the sciences. -QQuerius_{May 19, 2022
May
05
May
19
19
2022
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT}

FH Where are we grouping Third Way members? ID or EV?
Maybe they should be a third species?Seversky_{May 19, 2022
May
05
May
19
19
2022
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

FH
Where are we grouping Third Way members? ID or EV?
Not sure, but if evolution - they're evidence for a conflict among evolutionary theorists. if ID, then they're prominent voices supporting the ID inference.Silver Asiatic_{May 19, 2022
May
05
May
19
19
2022
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

Sandy @367, Thanks for the good points and the link to the comments. I appreciated the one by Tomoko Ohta. The presumption of “junk” is one based on IGNORANCE. “I don’t know the function, so it must therefore be junk. But it’s extremely difficult to prove that something has no function. Considering the vast complexity of a living cell, it’s massively more likely in biology that things do have a function. To the Georgi Marinov critique:
However, no knowledgeable person has ever defended the position that . . .
https://www.thoughtco.com/the-no-true-scotsman-fallacy-250339 So, that would include Dr. Susumu Ohno, who first used the term, “junk” with regard to DNA in his 1972 paper.
. . . 98 % of the human genome is useless.
No, they’ve just been calling it “junk” DNA for all those decades. After all, even “junk” might not be totally “useless,” right?
The 98 % figure corresponds to the fraction of it that lies outside of protein coding genes, but the existence of distal regulatory elements, as nicely narrated by the author himself, has been at this point in time known for four decades, and there have been numerous comparative genomics studies pointing to a several-fold larger than 2% fraction of the genome that is under selective constraint.
This is history rewritten in retrospect. They didn’t know this for four decades. Pure browbeating.
Of course, scientists have had a very good idea why so much of our DNA does not code for proteins, and they have had that understanding for decades, as outlined above.
Really??? And pray tell what is that reason “why” so much of our DNA does not code for proteins? More browbeating.
Only by completely ignoring all that knowledge could it have been possible to produce many of the chapters in the book.
Ooh, an ad hominem attack! Naturally, anyone who questions Darwinian orthodoxy must be purposely ignoring thousands of papers on the subject, which by sheer weight, has become unassailable. No new ideas or paradigms are allowed. Of course, Eva Jablonka is ignoring the current narrative. She's making an argument in favor of her new perspective. Consider all the scientists today that are ignoring Aristotle and Newton (how dare they!). This is another great example of the Semmelweiss Reflex! https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31837492/ Eva Jablonka's perspectives should stand or fall on their own merits, not by a democratic majority. -QQuerius_{May 19, 2022
May
05
May
19
19
2022
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

JVL, see the actual agenda of research that broke through a lot of prejudice and some bigotry and has been published, that is enough answer. KFkairosfocus_{May 19, 2022
May
05
May
19
19
2022
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

Asauber: It would be interesting for one of the Evolutionists commenting here to engage in a discussion of what the limitations of Evolution are. To me, what would be interesting is what features within Earth's lifeforms evolutionary biologists have been unable to explain using their methods, models and techniques. Just-so stories are not an adequate explanation. Paxxpaxx_{May 19, 2022
May
05
May
19
19
2022
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

seversky's quote:
Georgi goes on to explain four main arguments for junk DNA: genetic load, the C-value Paradox, transposons (selfish DNA), and modern evolutionary theory.
There isn't any scientific theory of evolution, modern or otherwise.ET_{May 19, 2022
May
05
May
19
19
2022
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

Dan Graur: "If ENCODE is right, evolution is wrong"!
Encode :
These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80 % of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions ...Operationally, we define a functional element as a discrete genome segment that encodes a defined product (for example, protein or non-coding RNA) or displays a reproducible biochemical signature (for example, protein binding, or a specific chromatin structure) The vast majority (80.4 %) of the human genome participates in at least one biochemical RNA—and/or chromatin-associated event in at least one cell type
There is no doubt about the function of DNA (and darwinists can't get rid of 10-30 -40 years of brainwashing just by reading the truth) and I would guess that there other 20% that was not detected with activity by ENCODE has been active in embrionary life participating to build the organism and then turned off after birth. So probably it's 110% :) functional and not junk . Only ignorance (or malice )about complexity of life would make someone "to predict" junk DNA . @361 ,Seversky, I don't see the arguments of "the devastating critique " maybe you help by poiting out . PS: the comment section from https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2016/03/georgi-marinov-reviews-two-books-on.html?m=1 is very interesting . Giorgi Marinov himself also commented and his comments are very revealing about his obvious bias . Would be too much to quote how he contradicts his own ideas.Sandy_{May 19, 2022
May
05
May
19
19
2022
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

5, Nessa Carey. See Seversky's comment. No wonder Fred was confused. @ Querius, if you have a point to make about epigenetics, why not just make it?Fred Hickson_{May 18, 2022
May
05
May
18
18
2022
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

Comment disappeared. Using phone so probably fat fingers. 2, Eva Jablonka. Third Way.Fred Hickson_{May 18, 2022
May
05
May
18
18
2022
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT}

4, Denis Noble. Third Way again. Where are we grouping Third Way members? ID or EV?Fred Hickson_{May 18, 2022
May
05
May
18
18
2022
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT}

3, James Shapiro. Third Way again. Am I sensing a pattern?Fred Hickson_{May 18, 2022
May
05
May
18
18
2022
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT}

So Querius quotes: Number 1 is Casey Luskin. Fred is correct the quote is from an ID supporter.Fred Hickson_{May 18, 2022
May
05
May
18
18
2022
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

Georgi Marinov reviews two books on junk DNA The December issue of Evolution: Education and Outreach has a review of two books on junk DNA. The reviewer is Georgi Marinov, a name that's familiar to Sandwalk readers. He is currently working with Michael Lynch at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, USA. You can read the review at: A deeper confusion. The books are …
The Deeper Genome: Why there is more to the human genome than meets the eye, by John Parrington, (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press), 2015. ISBN:978-0-19-968873-9. Junk DNA: A Journey Through the Dark Matter of the Genome, by Nessa Carey, (New York, United States: Columbia University Press), 2015. ISBN:978-0-23-117084-0.
[...] Parrington claims that noncoding DNA was thought to be junk and Georgi replies,
However, no knowledgeable person has ever defended the position that 98 % of the human genome is useless. The 98 % figure corresponds to the fraction of it that lies outside of protein coding genes, but the existence of distal regulatory elements, as nicely narrated by the author himself, has been at this point in time known for four decades, and there have been numerous comparative genomics studies pointing to a several-fold larger than 2% fraction of the genome that is under selective constraint.
[…] Georgi goes on to explain where Parringtons goes wrong about the ENCODE results. This critique is devastating, coming, as it does, from an author of the most relevant papers.1 My only complaint about the review is that George doesn't reveal his credentials. When he quotes from those papers—as he does many times—he should probably have mentioned that he is an author of those quotes. Georgi goes on to explain four main arguments for junk DNA: genetic load, the C-value Paradox, transposons (selfish DNA), and modern evolutionary theory. I like this part since it's similar to the Five Things You Should Know if You Want to Participate in the Junk DNA Debate. The audience of this journal is teachers and this is important information that they need to know, and probably don't. His critique of Nessa Carey's book is even more devastating. It begins with,
Still, despite a few unfortunate mistakes, The Deeper Genome is well written and gets many of its facts right, even if they are not interpreted properly. This is in stark contrast with Nessa Carey’s Junk DNA: A Journey Through the Dark Matter of the Genome. Nessa Carey has a PhD in virology and has in the past been a Senior Lecturer in Molecular Biology at Imperial College, London. However, Junk DNA is a book not written at an academic level but instead intended for very broad audience, with all the consequences that the danger of dumbing it down for such a purpose entails.
It gets worse. Nessa Carey claims that scientists used to think that all noncoding DNA was junk but recent discoveries have discredited that view. Georgi sets her straight with,
Of course, scientists have had a very good idea why so much of our DNA does not code for proteins, and they have had that understanding for decades, as outlined above. Only by completely ignoring all that knowledge could it have been possible to produce many of the chapters in the book. […] The inclusion of tRNAs and rRNAs in the list of “previously thought to be junk” DNA is particularly baffling given that they have featured prominently as critical components of the protein synthesis machinery in all sorts of basic high school biology textbooks for decades, not to mention the role that rRNAs and some of the other noncoding RNAs on that list play in many “RNA world” scenarios for the origin of life. How could something that has so often been postulated to predate the origin of DNA as the carrier of genetic information (Jeffares et al. 1998; Fox 2010) and that must have been of critical importance both before and after that be referred to as “junk”?
You would think that this is something that doesn't have to be explained to biology teachers but the evidence suggests otherwise.
Seversky_{May 18, 2022
May
05
May
18
18
2022
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

Sandy @358, Thanks for the link to the talk by Eva Jablonka. She was one of the authors I quoted from. Her reference to Larmarckism is particularly ironic considering how Lamarck was unfairly "debunked" in the biology courses I took. Also note how Fred Hickson dodges any cogent response to the quote I provided from Nessa Carey regarding "junk" DNA (*chuckle* is a typical trollbat response). She was one of the authors from @338 in addition to Nessa Jablonka. No, I'm not going to do any "homework assignments" from him. He doesn't click on any of the links anyway, apparently yours included. -QQuerius_{May 18, 2022
May
05
May
18
18
2022
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

*chuckles* Querius, no big deal but why not identify the authors for your quotes? I didn't cheat but now I'm tempted to search.Fred Hickson_{May 18, 2022
May
05
May
18
18
2022
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

A reasonable evolutionary scientist about why mainstream scientists resist to ...science : https://youtu.be/o7ckZ7SmfhESandy_{May 18, 2022
May
05
May
18
18
2022
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

Fred Hickson, ALL but one are evolutionary biologists in related fields, one holds a PhD in Evolutionary Biology. The lone exception is a journalist who published interviews with evolutionary biologists. Since you firmly believe that "junk" DNA "clearly" has no function, you might want to focus your hyperskepticism against Nessa Carey. She is a British biologist working in the field of molecular biology and biotechnology. She is International Director of the technology transfer organisation PraxisUnico and a Visiting Professor at Imperial College London. Her expertise is in the field of epigenetics. According to Wikipedia,
She is the author of The Epigenetics Revolution and Junk DNA: A Journey Through the Dark Matter of the Genome which explore advances in the field of epigenetics and their implications for medicine.
Regarding her book, Junk DNA: A Journey Through the Dark Matter of the Genome, here's a description of the subject:
For decades after the identification of the structure of DNA, scientists focused only on genes, the regions of the genome that contain codes for the production of proteins. Other regions that make up 98 percent of the human genome were dismissed as "junk," sequences that serve no purpose. But researchers have recently discovered variations and modulations in this junk DNA that are involved with a number of intractable diseases. Our increasing knowledge of junk DNA has led to innovative research and treatment approaches that may finally ameliorate some of these conditions. Junk DNA can play vital and unanticipated roles in the control of gene expression, from fine-tuning individual genes to switching off entire chromosomes. These functions have forced scientists to revisit the very meaning of the word "gene" and have engendered a spirited scientific battle over whether or not this genomic "nonsense" is the source of human biological complexity. Drawing on her experience with leading scientific investigators in Europe and North America, Nessa Carey provides a clear and compelling introduction to junk DNA and its critical involvement in phenomena as diverse as genetic diseases, viral infections, sex determination in mammals, and evolution. We are only now unlocking the secrets of junk DNA, and Nessa Carey's book is an essential resource for navigating the history and controversies of this fast-growing, hotly disputed field.
Of course, with your vast experience and profound knowledge of the full scope of your personal opinion, nothing published regarding the advancements in genetics will have any impact on the fortress of your admitted ignorance. Why don't you consider purchasing her book? You might discover that exploring the world outside your fortress is terrifying but nevertheless interesting. I do this as well as a challenge and prevent ossification. -QQuerius_{May 18, 2022
May
05
May
18
18
2022
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

Is that your final answer? C'mon, Querius, the tension is unbearable here! :)Fred Hickson_{May 18, 2022
May
05
May
18
18
2022
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

All are written by Darwin's soldiers.Sandy_{May 18, 2022
May
05
May
18
18
2022
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

Doesn't look like anyone else is interested in Querius' challenge at comment #338. Is he going to do a reveal?Fred Hickson_{May 18, 2022
May
05
May
18
18
2022
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

JHolo
I had a vasectomy when I was 32 (under a general).
I only had a local so was able to have a chat with my surgeon while the procedure was ongoing. He was Spanish so did not cotton on to my question "will I be able to play the violin after this?" Of course, he replied. That's amazing, I couldn't play it before! Ba-dum-tish. I'm here all week.Fred Hickson_{May 18, 2022
May
05
May
18
18
2022
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply