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

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.Joseph_{April 20, 2011
April
04
Apr
20
20
2011
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

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?Doveton_{April 20, 2011
April
04
Apr
20
20
2011
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

For example "The Privileged Planet" makes the claim that the universe was designed for (scientific) discovery.Joseph_{April 20, 2011
April
04
Apr
20
20
2011
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

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.Joseph_{April 20, 2011
April
04
Apr
20
20
2011
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

Heinrich- BLIND WATCHMAKER predictions- please TRY to stay focused.Joseph_{April 20, 2011
April
04
Apr
20
20
2011
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

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?zeroseven_{April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

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.Heinrich_{April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

Drawing attention back to Joseph's request,
please present some blind watchmaker predictions so that we can compare.
Jonathan M_{April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

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.Joseph_{April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

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.myname_{April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

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.Heinrich_{April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

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.Joseph_{April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

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. JJonathan M_{April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

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.myname_{April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

This is very good. It should be added to the FAQ.tribune7_{April 18, 2011
April
04
Apr
18
18
2011
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

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.Collin_{April 18, 2011
April
04
Apr
18
18
2011
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

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)Heinrich_{April 18, 2011
April
04
Apr
18
18
2011
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

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.rprado_{April 18, 2011
April
04
Apr
18
18
2011
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

I'd say there are an awful lot of retrodictions in that list.jurassicmac_{April 18, 2011
April
04
Apr
18
18
2011
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

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/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/#ActPotMung_{April 18, 2011
April
04
Apr
18
18
2011
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

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.Mapou_{April 18, 2011
April
04
Apr
18
18
2011
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

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! :)bornagain77_{April 18, 2011
April
04
Apr
18
18
2011
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply