Yesterday, original Darwinist assumptions about “junk DNA” were offered; today, again courtesy Donald Johnson’s Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability LITE: A Call to Scientific Integrity. Now, let’s see what the ID guys had to say about it (p. 57):
“Junk DNA” has been classified as a misnomer by ID proponents as early as 1986 [Den86], since “Junk DNA and directed evolution are in the end incompatible concepts” [Den98] The journal Science refused to print a 1994 letter that pro-ID scientist Forrest Mims wrote warning about assuming that “junk DNA” was useless [Mim94*]*9. Rejected Publications
They’ve been saying it ever since, popular or otherwise.
Some have raised the question: Darwinists used “junk DNA” as support for their theory (there is no actual design in nature). And ID proponents believed that the non-coding DNA wasn’t junk and that its functionality, when discovered, would support their theory (there is design in nature). So where do we stand today?
Others venture to predict: Darwinists will continue to frame the situation so that nothing ever counts as evidence against Darwinism.