… that it is hard to know what to say in response. The blogger A-Unicornist is one such/ He huffs,
Evolution is falsifiable because it makes innumerable predictions about what we will find and where we’ll find it.
claiming that design is not falsifiable
In the same post, he announces that
And yet I don’t fancy myself a biologist. So if I were to read something like, say, The Myth of Junk DNA, a book published by the pro-ID Discovery Institute, I probably wouldn’t have the knowledge to refute most of the esoteric information in there. Fortunately there are others who do, like Larry Moran, but I’d be pretty much lost in that kind of discussion. And yet I think there are several things that, on their face, indicate that there isn’t any reason why I should take Intelligent Design seriously even if I’m not well-versed enough in biology to single-handedly refute all their specific claims.
The Myth of Junk DNA is actually quite easy to read. We’ve excerpted a number of passages here at UD. The interesting part is that Darwinists thought that the presence of huge amounts of junk DNA was evidence for their position.
Now that it turns out that much, probably most, of it isn’t junk, is that evidence against the Darwinist’s position?
We are guessing that A-unicornist will not think so.
Darwinist math goes like this: 1 + 1 = 2, but 1 minus 1 does not equal zero.
See also: He said it: Darwin’s junk DNA zealots “have forfeited any claim … to be speaking for science”