Does ID Make Testable Scientific Predictions?

_{Jonathan McLatchie

April 18, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

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.]

Comments

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.Heinrich_{April 26, 2011
April
04
Apr
26
26
2011
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

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.Joseph_{April 25, 2011
April
04
Apr
25
25
2011
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

Joseph, sorry I don't know which of my comments you're responding to. Could yo be a bit more specific?Heinrich_{April 23, 2011
April
04
Apr
23
23
2011
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Heinrich, According to Dawkins natural selection is blind. According to UC Berkley it is mindless. According to Will Provine it doesn't do anything.Joseph_{April 23, 2011
April
04
Apr
23
23
2011
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

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*Joseph_{April 22, 2011
April
04
Apr
22
22
2011
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

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.Doveton_{April 22, 2011
April
04
Apr
22
22
2011
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

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.Heinrich_{April 22, 2011
April
04
Apr
22
22
2011
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

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.Joseph_{April 21, 2011
April
04
Apr
21
21
2011
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

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.noam_ghish_{April 21, 2011
April
04
Apr
21
21
2011
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

Is Doveton in moderation or did it just run away as opposed to answering my three questions?Joseph_{April 21, 2011
April
04
Apr
21
21
2011
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

“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...Joseph_{April 21, 2011
April
04
Apr
21
21
2011
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

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.Doveton_{April 21, 2011
April
04
Apr
21
21
2011
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

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. :cool:Joseph_{April 21, 2011
April
04
Apr
21
21
2011
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

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.Joseph_{April 21, 2011
April
04
Apr
21
21
2011
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

1- Blind, undireted (sic)processes do not predict convergence.
Would you include selection as a "blind, undirected process"?Heinrich_{April 21, 2011
April
04
Apr
21
21
2011
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

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.Doveton_{April 21, 2011
April
04
Apr
21
21
2011
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

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")...Joseph_{April 21, 2011
April
04
Apr
21
21
2011
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

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.Heinrich_{April 21, 2011
April
04
Apr
21
21
2011
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PDT}

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 supportedJoseph_{April 20, 2011
April
04
Apr
20
20
2011
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

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.Doveton_{April 20, 2011
April
04
Apr
20
20
2011
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

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"Mung_{April 20, 2011
April
04
Apr
20
20
2011
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

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.Doveton_{April 20, 2011
April
04
Apr
20
20
2011
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

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.Doveton_{April 20, 2011
April
04
Apr
20
20
2011
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

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. - SonfaroSonfaro_{April 20, 2011
April
04
Apr
20
20
2011
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

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.
Joseph_{April 20, 2011
April
04
Apr
20
20
2011
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

Joseph - in what sense were my predictions not "BLIND WATCHMAKER predictions"?Heinrich_{April 20, 2011
April
04
Apr
20
20
2011
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

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.Doveton_{April 20, 2011
April
04
Apr
20
20
2011
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

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.Joseph_{April 20, 2011
April
04
Apr
20
20
2011
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

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.Doveton_{April 20, 2011
April
04
Apr
20
20
2011
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

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?Doveton_{April 20, 2011
April
04
Apr
20
20
2011
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply