Intelligent Design

Does ID Make Testable Scientific Predictions?

Spread the love

I was recently engaged in correspondance with someone who told me that the theory of ID isn’t scientific because it doesn’t make scientific predictions. We’ve all heard it, right? Indeed, most of you are probably bored to tears having had to address, and respond to, this argument over and over, seemingly to no avail. As with so many things in this discussion, the constantly re-iterated response seems to repeatedly fall on deaf ears.

So, I took a few moments to ‘brain storm’ and jot down those scientific predictions, made by ID, which immediately came to mind. This is what I came up with:

Predictions In Astronomy/Cosmology

  • ID predicts that the Universe had a beginning.
  • ID predicts an increase (and not a decrease), as science progresses, in the number of finely-tuned parameters pertinent to the laws and constants of physics.

Predictions in Biology

  • ID predicts the presence of specified complexity in living systems.
  • ID predicts that, as scientific research progresses, biological complexity will be seen to increase over time, and information will have a more and more central role in the governing of life’s operations.
  • ID predicts an increase in evidence for the non-adequacy of the DNA-centric view of living systems.
  • ID predicts that complex molecular convergence will happen routinely.
  • ID predicts the presence of irreducible complexity with respect to macromolecular systems and organelles.
  • ID predicts that the prevalence of functional protein folds with respect to combinatorial sequence space will be extremely small.
  • ID predicts that evolutionary pathways to new protein functions will require multiple co-ordinated non-adaptive mutations (more so than likely to be achieved by a random process).
  • ID predicts that DNA, which was once considered to be junk, will turn out to be functional after all.
  • ID predicts delicate optimisation and fine-tuning with respect to many features associated with biological systems.
  • ID predicts that organisms will exhibit in-built systems which promote evolvability (e.g. front loading).

Predictions in Paleontology

  • ID predicts the observed pattern of the fossil record whereby morphological disparity precedes diversity.
  • ID predicts saltational, or abrupt, appearance of new life forms without transitional precursors.

Those were the predictions which immediately came to mind, and I am sure they are non-exhaustive.

What about you? How many scientific predictions can you think of?

[UPDATE: Several criticisms of the predictions offered here have now been addressed here.]

52 Replies to “Does ID Make Testable Scientific Predictions?

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    ID predicts that the more science reveals about the stunning multiple overlapping layers of design in nature, the more dogmatic atheists will insistently say that ID is not science! 🙂

  2. 2
    Mapou says:

    Non-Nested Hierarchies
    The ID camp does not seem to have offered it yet but there is one prediction of intelligent design that is a sure winner, in my opinion. Intelligent designers are known to use multiple inheritance in their designs in order to avoid having to reinvent the wheel. If life was designed, it’s a sure bet that the tree of life must contain non-nested hierarchies. Darwinian evolution, by contrast, predicts that the tree of life consists of strictly nested hierarchies.

    Now that the genomes of various species have been and are being decoded, it should be possible to write genetic search algorithms that automatically look for multiply-inherited genes in distant branches of the genetic tree.

    Multiply-inherited amino acid sequences have already been found in echolocating bats and toothed whales but the Darwinists attribute it to evolutionary convergence. However, the finding of entire multiply-inherited genes would destroy the convergence explanation and falsify the ToE. In addition, it would be solid evidence for design.

  3. 3
    Mung says:

    ID predicts that “matter” is mere potential and must be “informed” to become actualized.

    But then, Aristotle knew this thousands of years ago.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entr.....cs/#ActPot

  4. 4
    jurassicmac says:

    I’d say there are an awful lot of retrodictions in that list.

  5. 5
    rprado says:

    I predict that a programming language and Operative System will be found in DNA, surely in the form of “machine code”, so it will have to be reverse-engineered to get the source code. That will prove Intelligent Design once and for all and also we will have a clue of the designers’ language (i.e, what “words” they use for such commands as GOTO, WHILE, FOR, END, etc., and, of course, the LABEL and comment lines!). I hope to be alive by then.

  6. 6
    Heinrich says:

    Can you explain why these are predictions from ID? Some at least seem to assume more of the designer than ID claims.

    Just for starters, perhaps you could explain these 3:

    * ID predicts that DNA, which was once considered to be junk, will turn out to be functional after all.
    * ID predicts that organisms will exhibit in-built systems which promote evolvability (e.g. front loading).
    * ID predicts the observed pattern of the fossil record whereby morphological disparity precedes diversity.

    (just because these are 3 which look particularly interesting in this regard)

  7. 7
    Collin says:

    I really like this prediction of yours:
    “ID predicts that, as scientific research progresses, biological complexity will be seen to increase over time, and information will have a more and more central role in the governing of life’s operations.”

    I think that the predictions in the paleontology section are more favorable to a creationist perspective than ID necessarily. I mean, ID can predict design in nature, but ID would be okay with gradualism so long as there is evidence of design in nature (like the bacterial flagellum). Having said that, I totally endorse those predictions because I am a creationist.

  8. 8
    tribune7 says:

    This is very good. It should be added to the FAQ.

  9. 9
    myname says:

    This is an interesting list but imho has each item at least one of the following problems:
    1) The prediction is to vague to be tested.
    2) It is a postdiction meaning a prediction after the fact.
    3) The prediction is the same as what you would expect form the ToE thus the prediction is not discriminatory.
    4) It is unclear how you got that prediction.

    But I’m more specifically interested in something else. I would like to know how you derive the prediction that
    1) biological complexity will be seen to increase over time;
    2) complex molecular convergence will happen routinely;
    3) DNA, which was once considered to be junk, will turn out to be functional?

    I don’t understand how these follow from ID.

  10. 10
    Jonathan M says:

    myname —

    Responding to your three questions respectively:

    1) If, over the last ten years, it had turned out that — as scientists uncovered more and more information — that the level of biological complexity had decreased steadily over time, as an ID proponent I would be worried. If, on the other hand (as actually did happen), biological complexity was found to increase steadily over time, this trend seems to sit much more comfortably with an ID perspective than a Darwinian one. The same might be said for the coming years of research.

    2) Casey Luskin explains convergent evolution as a prediction of ID as follows:

    Blueprints will be re-used, or “common design” will be prevalent. From an evolutionary perspective, this means that convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.

    3) From the standpoint of ID, it is not expected that a designer would seemingly arbitrarily fill our genome with nonsensical sequences. As such, ID being true, I would expect to see this so-called “junk DNA” turn out not to be so junky after all.

    J

  11. 11
    Joseph says:

    OK myname, please present some blind watchmaker predictions so that we can compare.

    That said ID does predict that when deigning agencies act they leave traces of their involvement behind. And that through our knowledge of cause and effect relationships we can find those traces.

  12. 12
    Heinrich says:

    From the standpoint of ID, it is not expected that a designer would seemingly arbitrarily fill our genome with nonsensical sequences.

    Why not? Perhaps the designer has a sense of humour. We’re repeatedly told that ID doesn’t say anything about the designer, but only that some things might have been designed, so how come you’re now making assumptions about the designer?

    Now here’s a prediction: this comment will be ignored.

  13. 13
    myname says:

    Jonathan

    Thanks for your answers. I’m kind of tempted to ask on what basis you know what the designer did or did not do. But I guess will leave that for now.

  14. 14
    Joseph says:

    myname:

    I’m kind of tempted to ask on what basis you know what the designer did or did not do.

    On the basis of our knowledge of caus and effect relationships.

  15. 15
    Jonathan M says:

    Drawing attention back to Joseph’s request,

    please present some blind watchmaker predictions so that we can compare.

  16. 16
    Heinrich says:

    OK, here are a few predictions.

    * Evolutionary biology predicts that convergence can happen, but that when it is looked at in detail, it will usually have come about through different routes (e.g. different mutations leading to the same phenotype).

    * Evolutionary biology predicts that pathways to new protein functions will involve steadily increasing fitness: there will be few valleys between one adaptation and the next.
    * Evolutionary biology predicts that the rate of evolution can itself evolve.

    Of course, there are many more but that’s a start.

  17. 17
    zeroseven says:

    Jonathan:

    “From the standpoint of ID, it is not expected that a designer would seemingly arbitrarily fill our genome with nonsensical sequences.”

    What is the basis for this statement given ID says nothing about the designer, its motivations, and its mechanisms? How can you say the designer would not fill the genome with nonsensical sequences for reasons of its own which are beyond your understanding?

  18. 18
    Joseph says:

    Heinrich-

    BLIND WATCHMAKER predictions- please TRY to stay focused.

  19. 19
    Joseph says:

    zeroseven:

    What is the basis for this statement given ID says nothing about the designer, its motivations, and its mechanisms?

    That is wrong- ID is not about the designer, but that doesn’t mean we cannot say something about it.

  20. 20
    Joseph says:

    For example “The Privileged Planet” makes the claim that the universe was designed for (scientific) discovery.

  21. 21
    Doveton says:

    Joseph @18:

    Heinrich-

    BLIND WATCHMAKER predictions- please TRY to stay focused.

    I am curious here – I did a cursory search, but could find no reference to any Blind Watchmaker hypothesis or concept in science. Is there a scientific reference to such that you could point me to and/or any work on such of which you are aware Joseph? The only references I found to such were from popular books and lectures by Richard Dawkins, but since the references were not made in any scientific context, but rather as analogies, the phrase as he uses it would include no predictions. Are you then referring to something else?

  22. 22
    Joseph says:

    Curious or something else?:

    “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

    The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity- Nobel Laureates Iinitiative

    September 9, 2005

    Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of
    an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

    “Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UCBerkley

    What Causes Mutations?:

    Mutations in DNA sequences generally occur through one of two processes:
    1. DNA damage from environmental agents such as ultraviolet light (sunshine), nuclear radiation or certain chemicals

    2. Mistakes that occur when a cell copies its DNA in preparation for cell division.

    Causes of Mutations:

    1. DNA fails to copy accurately
    Most of the mutations that we think matter to evolution are “naturally-occurring.” For example, when a cell divides, it makes a copy of its DNA — and sometimes the copy is not quite perfect. That small difference from the original DNA sequence is a mutation.

    2. External influences can create mutations
    Mutations can also be caused by exposure to specific chemicals or radiation. These agents cause the DNA to break down. This is not necessarily unnatural — even in the most isolated and pristine environments, DNA breaks down. Nevertheless, when the cell repairs the DNA, it might not do a perfect job of the repair. So the cell would end up with DNA slightly different than the original DNA and hence, a mutation.

    DNA Replication and Causes of Mutation:

    DNA replication is a truly amazing biological phenomenon. Consider the countless number of times that your cells divide to make you who you are—not just during development, but even now, as a fully mature adult. Then consider that every time a human cell divides and its DNA replicates, it has to copy and transmit the exact same sequence of 3 billion nucleotides to its daughter cells. Finally, consider the fact that in life (literally), nothing is perfect. While most DNA replicates with fairly high fidelity, mistakes do happen, with polymerase enzymes sometimes inserting the wrong nucleotide or too many or too few nucleotides into a sequence. Fortunately, most of these mistakes are fixed through various DNA repair processes. Repair enzymes recognize structural imperfections between improperly paired nucleotides, cutting out the wrong ones and putting the right ones in their place. But some replication errors make it past these mechanisms, thus becoming permanent mutations. These altered nucleotide sequences can then be passed down from one cellular generation to the next, and if they occur in cells that give rise to gametes, they can even be transmitted to subsequent organismal generations. Moreover, when the genes for the DNA repair enzymes themselves become mutated, mistakes begin accumulating at a much higher rate. In eukaryotes, such mutations can lead to cancer. (bold added)

    In the evolutionary scenario all mutations are genetic accidents.

  23. 23
    Doveton says:

    Joseph @22:

    You quote from the Elie Weisel Foundation from Humanity concerning their thesis on the concept, which is fine, however I’m not sure how this addresses my question since theses are academic propositions, not specifically related to scientific hypotheses. Certainly in this case it is not.

    You also provide a quote from UC Berkley on Natural Selection, but in reviewing that citation, I can find no reference to any Blind Watchmaker concept. Can you elaborate on how this addresses my question?

    You also provide a series of explanations on a type of cause of mutations, but again, none of these appear to address this Blind Watchmaker concept and/or why it should contain any predictions. Can you elaborate on how these relate to my original questions?

  24. 24
    Doveton says:

    As an aside, Joseph, I did a search on the UC Berkley site on the term “watchmaker”. One reference only is returned:

    ID is a descendent of William Paley’s Argument from Design from his book Natural Theology, published in 1802, which argued that God’s existence could be proved by examining his works. Paley used an analogy: He claimed that if one found an intricately contrived watch, it was obvious that it could not have come together by chance. The existence of a watch implied a watchmaker who had designed the watch with a purpose in mind. Similarly, because the world was full of intricate structures that have function, this implies that they were designed as well. The existence of God was proven by the presence of order and intricacy.

    I presume this is not what you were referring to considering the context.

  25. 25
    Joseph says:

    Doveton,

    I provided a definition of the blind watchmaker thesis along with the evidence that supports it.

    Again the theory of evolution posits that all genetic changes are accidents and these accumulate via various non-telic processes.

    That is the blind watchmaker thesis as applied to teh ToE.

  26. 26
    Doveton says:

    Joseph @25

    I provided a definition of the blind watchmaker thesis along with the evidence that supports it

    I see we are back to my original question from 21. Allow me to post it again to reiterate:

    I am curious here – I did a cursory search, but could find no reference to any Blind Watchmaker hypothesis or concept in science.

    Since, as I already noted, the Elie Weisel thesis on the term is not a scientific theory or hypothesis in and of itself, it is of no help in answering my question nor does it provide any indication of any predictions associated with any such concept. Further, as I noted, your references to mutation causes are not tied to the term either, so they are of no help in determining whether the term is associated with any scientific concept. Finally, nothing you’ve provided indicates the term is associated with the Theory of Evolution in any way. As such, you’ve offered no further insight on the subject.

    If you do not wish to present any evidence that the term is associated in a meaningful way in science, or if you are unable to do so, I fully understand. However, in either of those cases there is nothing on which to associate the term with any concept in science, never mind any scientific predictions. In which case your question to Heinrich becomes rather moot.

    So it appears your question is not valid at this point. If and when you can elaborate on it and tie it distinctly to a scientific concept, I will be happy to try and address your question.

    Thank you for your time Joseph.

  27. 27
    Heinrich says:

    Joseph – in what sense were my predictions not “BLIND WATCHMAKER predictions”?

  28. 28
    Joseph says:

    I provided a definition of the blind watchmaker thesis along with the evidence that supports it.

    Doveton:

    I see we are back to my original question from 21.

    Are you saying that you didn’t understand wht I said?

    It doesn’t matter what it is called-it is what it is*- I am just using the words of the high priest of the theory of evolution.

    IOW, Doveton, it appears you are playing a game of semantic quibbling- ie your complaint is not valid.

    But you are correct- the term doesn’t have any meaning in science. That is the whole point.

    Thank you.

    *

    the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

  29. 29
    Sonfaro says:

    Hey Doveton,

    Uh… are you really suggesting that some scientists don’t think that evolutionary processes are the product of random events and ‘accidents’ ie. ‘Blind Watchmaker’? I’m confused about your issue with Josephs statement.

    Or are you saying that this position isn’t really a scientific one?

    Sorry for my confusion, I don’t keep up with this sort of thing.

    – Sonfaro

  30. 30
    Doveton says:

    Sonfaro @28

    I have suggested nothing with regards to what scientists think about evolutionary process. I asked Joseph about his use of the term “Blind Watchmaker” because I cannot determine what he is actually referring to in his use of the term.

    In 11 above, Joseph first posits the question to noname. Perfectly legitimate question, I suppose, though I cannot figure out the context given what noname wrote above, but no matter. However, I was then at a loss when I read 18 above, wherein Joseph dismissed Heinrich’s attempt to answer the question (in 16 above) with evolutionary mechanisms – reiterating that his question dealt with “BLIND WATCHMAKER predictions”. I therefore concluded that Joseph was referring to some other scientific concept entirely.

    As you can see, Joseph then came back to my inquiry in 21 with a thesis from a humanitarian group (22 above), university explanations on causes of mutations (22 above), genetic changes as understood in the Theory of Evolution or TOE (25 above), and now the a definition of the TOE itself (27 above). This all seems to contradict his protest to Heinrich’s response dealing with these very concepts above.

    So I am afraid I am as confused as you are, Sonfaro. I mean, regardless of whether one happens to accept evolutionary mechanisms as valid, either this Blind Watchmaker concept that Joseph refers to is reflected within – or at least related to – the TOE or not. If it is, then Heinrich’s response above seems perfectly legitimate, yes? If it is not, then one must conclude that the concept is included in some other scientific endeavor, no? I cannot fathom how it could be both.

  31. 31
    Doveton says:

    Joseph @27:

    So as not to string this discussion out indefinitely, please refer to my response in 29 for elaboration on my confusion with your question. Thank you.

  32. 32
    Mung says:

    I asked Joseph about his use of the term “Blind Watchmaker” because I cannot determine what he is actually referring to in his use of the term.

    Perhaps this was before your time.

    Google “The Blind Watchmaker”

  33. 33
    Doveton says:

    Mung @31

    Thank you Mung. Actually I did Google the term as I noted in 21 above. Again though, since the references from Dawkins did not appear to apply in this case given Joseph’s response to Heinrich, I was wondering if he was referring to something else. Perhaps if you understand to what Joseph is referring you could enlighten me. I would very much appreciate it if you or anyone else could, though I will at this point understand if such is not possible.

  34. 34
    Joseph says:

    Doveton:
    However, I was then at a loss when I read 18 above, wherein Joseph dismissed Heinrich’s attempt to answer the question (in 16 above) with evolutionary mechanisms – reiterating that his question dealt with “BLIND WATCHMAKER predictions”.

    That is the problem-

    Heinrich (16) didn’t say anything about any “evolutionary mechanisms”- just some vague claim of “evolutionary” biology

    Now if he is saying that accumulated genetic accidents predicted those things then that has to be supported

  35. 35
    Heinrich says:

    Heinrich (16) didn’t say anything about any “evolutionary mechanisms”- just some vague claim of “evolutionary” biology

    You don’t ask about mechanisms though, did you? So why introduce this higher standard?

    I’d note, though, that this post was about ID predictions. It’s a pity there has been so little attempt to amplify on them (the only excpetion being Jonathan M at 10), e.g. explaining how ID makes these predictions, as I asked for in comment 6 and myname asked in comment 9 (and I followed up in comment 12. Note that although I am not a Blind Watchmaker, my prediction was correct).

    On Jonathan M.’s three comments at 10, I’d just note:
    1) this says nothing about how ID comes up with the prediction
    2) This seems reasonable, although it assumes that the Designer doesn’t like exercising itself by trying to do the same thing in totally different ways
    3) See my comment at 12.

  36. 36
    Joseph says:

    Heinrich:

    in what sense were my predictions not “BLIND WATCHMAKER predictions”?

    1- Blind, undireted processes do not predict convergence.

    2- Blind, udirected processes do not predict that pathways to new protein functions will involve steadily increasing fitness – BTW fitness is based on reproductive success

    3- Blind, undirected processes do not predict that the rate of evolution can itself evolve.

    The best blind, undirected processes cn do is predict change and/ or stasis.

    But hey perhaps you can provide a reference to support your claims- they are your claims and it is up to YOU to support them.

    I am sure I can find something about convergence being unexpected (Mayr “What Evolution Is”)…

  37. 37
    Doveton says:

    Joseph @34

    That is the problem-

    Heinrich (16) didn’t say anything about any “evolutionary mechanisms”- just some vague claim of “evolutionary” biology

    Hmmm…so as far as you are aware, regardless of whether it is a valid concept/theory/process/etc or not, evolutionary biology, in general or specific, does not include the concept of evolutionary mechanisms? And terms such as mutation and adaptation do not strike you as being mechanisms themselves? I see. Fascinating.

    This has been most enjoyable discussion, Joseph. Thank you for your time.

  38. 38
    Heinrich says:

    1- Blind, undireted (sic)processes do not predict convergence.

    Would you include selection as a “blind, undirected process”?

  39. 39
    Joseph says:

    Doveton:

    so as far as you are aware, regardless of whether it is a valid concept/theory/process/etc or not, evolutionary biology, in general or specific, does not include the concept of evolutionary mechanisms?

    Wow, just wow. How does that address what you were respondingto?

    And can you tell us the methodology used to determine evolutionary mechanisms are blind, mindless, and undirected?

    And terms such as mutation and adaptation do not strike you as being mechanisms themselves?

    Never thought, said nor implied such a thing.

    Strange how you just leap to faulty conclusions based on your twisted interpretations. That is typical of your ilk.

    This has been most enjoyable discussion, Joseph.

    Yes, I am sure you enjoy muddying the waters.

  40. 40
    Joseph says:

    Doveton,

    This is what I find enjoyable-

    About “evolutionary” predictions:

    1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    Those are a few of the thousands questions evolutonists need testable hypotheses for.

    The enjoyment comes from observing people like you avoid answering those questions. 😎

  41. 41
    Doveton says:

    Joseph @37:

    Wow, just wow. How does that address what you were respondingto?

    You wrote in 34: “Heinrich didn’t say anything about “evolutionary mechanisms” – just some vague claim of “evolutionary” biology.” I cannot fathom how the two concepts could be understood to be mutually exclusive.

    And can you tell us the methodology used to determine evolutionary mechanisms are blind, mindless, and undirected?

    Why would you ask me to explain the methodology used to determine that evolutionary mechanisms are blind, mindless, and undirected when I have never made the claim that they are?

    And terms such as mutation and adaptation do not strike you as being mechanisms themselves?

    Never thought, said nor implied such a thing.

    Oh but you most certainly did when you responded to Heinrich indicating that his listed response of blind watchmaker predictions as related to evolutionary biology (at 16 above) were not, in fact, valid as blind watchmaker predictions, coupled with your response to me at 34 wherein you most definitely state that Heinrich did not actually refer to any mechanisms. You see, he actually referenced those very terms, thus your dismissal of that reply, along with your insistence that he did not reference any mechanisms, does very much indicate a dismissal of those terms as mechanisms. Hence my question regarding such.

    However, given this:

    Yes, I am sure you enjoy muddying the waters.

    It appears you have no interest in clear discourse. As such I will not trouble you further.

  42. 42
    Joseph says:

    “Heinrich didn’t say anything about “evolutionary mechanisms” – just some vague claim of “evolutionary” biology.”

    Doveton:

    I cannot fathom how the two concepts could be understood to be mutually exclusive.

    Or mutually equivocative. But anyway convergence is not a prediction of accumulating genetic accidents.

    Why would you ask me to explain the methodology used to determine that evolutionary mechanisms are blind, mindless, and undirected when I have never made the claim that they are?

    Then what is your point?

    And terms such as mutation and adaptation do not strike you as being mechanisms themselves?

    Never thought, said nor implied such a thing.

    Oh but you most certainly did…

    Nope, you are making that up.

    when you responded to Heinrich indicating that his listed response of blind watchmaker predictions as related to evolutionary biology (at 16 above) were not, in fact, valid as blind watchmaker predictions,

    Unless you are a mind-reader Heinrich didn’t make that claim-

    coupled with your response to me at 34 wherein you most definitely state that Heinrich did not actually refer to any mechanisms.

    He didn’t. Just a vague claim of “mutations” and “adaptations”- didn’t say if those mutations and adapations are directed/ telically driven.

    Ya see both ID and YEC are OK with “mutations” and “adaptaions”- those are not exclusive to the current ToE.

    Therefor Heinrick’s “evolutionary predictions” fit a number of biological models.

    That was and still is my point.

    But anyway it is enjoyable watching you avoid my questions.

    Sweet…

  43. 43
    Joseph says:

    Is Doveton in moderation or did it just run away as opposed to answering my three questions?

  44. 44
    noam_ghish says:

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m in full support of ID, but I do think over at Panda’s Thumb they’re asking why ID makes these predictions. I think we should point out why ID is making these predictions.

  45. 45
    Joseph says:

    Perhaps “they” should tell us about the predictions “their” position makes and why it makes those predictions.

    That way we can compare. In the absence of that no one cares what “they” say as it is empty criticism.

  46. 46
    Heinrich says:

    Heinrich:

    in what sense were my predictions not “BLIND WATCHMAKER predictions”?

    1- Blind, undireted processes do not predict convergence.

    2- Blind, udirected processes do not predict that pathways to new protein functions will involve steadily increasing fitness – BTW fitness is based on reproductive success

    3- Blind, undirected processes do not predict that the rate of evolution can itself evolve.

    The best blind, undirected processes cn do is predict change and/ or stasis.

    I was hoping for a bit more of an explanation than “you’re wrong”, especially as your first “you’re wrong” doesn’t even deal with what I was claiming.

    TBH, I’m not sure what your “blind undirected processes” have to do with the processes we study in evolutionary biology. It’s clear, for example, that evolvability can evolve (e.g. mutation rates can evolve through changes in the efficiency of DNA repair mechanisms. A less efficient repair mechanism means more mutations, and hence more variation for selection to act on, an thus a higher capacity to evolve when in a sub-optimal environment).

    But hey perhaps you can provide a reference to support your claims- they are your claims and it is up to YOU to support them.

    Will Jonathan M. support his claims first? I asked up-thread, and have had little response.

    BTW, I also have some comments above in moderation, so you may like to respond to them first.

  47. 47
    Doveton says:

    noam_ghish @42

    I believe that was Mathgrrl’s underlying goal – to determine whether there is an agreed upon rigorously defined ID concept that could be repeated used not just to predict a designer’s involvement in the development of a given object, but also used to extrapolate beyond the designer into predictions of overt patterns associated with design. So far that does not appear to be the case however.

  48. 48
    Joseph says:

    And I gave MathGrrl an agreed upon rigorously defined ID concept. One that is more rigorously defined than anything the theory of evolution has to offer.

    It doesn’t bother me that she, you and others choose to ignore what I provided. It is expected.

    *shrug* *sigh*

  49. 49
    Joseph says:

    Heinrich,

    According to Dawkins natural selection is blind. According to UC Berkley it is mindless.

    According to Will Provine it doesn’t do anything.

  50. 50
    Heinrich says:

    Joseph, sorry I don’t know which of my comments you’re responding to. Could yo be a bit more specific?

  51. 51
    Joseph says:

    Heinrich:

    TBH, I’m not sure what your “blind undirected processes” have to do with the processes we study in evolutionary biology.

    and

    Would you include selection as a “blind, undirected process”?

    According to Dawkins natural selection is blind. According to UC Berkley it is mindless.

    According to Will Provine it doesn’t do anything.

    And according to the ToE all mutations are genetic accidents/ errors/ mistakes.

  52. 52
    Heinrich says:

    Thank you, Joseph. I assume that you’re agreeing that with Dawkins that selection is blind. But what about undirected? I can see that being argued both ways, so I’d like to be sure I know where you stand on that.

Leave a Reply