ID’s “predictive prowess”

_{William Dembski

January 14, 2008

The Design of Life}

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

A producer from one of the national talking heads programs is discussing with FTE’s PR firm whether to interview me or Jonathan Wells regarding our new book THE DESIGN OF LIFE. The producer has some reservations about interviewing us:

Hi [snip],

As I’m sure you know, one of the main claims any scientific theory can make is predictive prowess. In other words, if a theory is true, then other things should also be verifiable experimentally, or by research. Before we make a call on your clients, can you or they provide any samples of things that intelligent design theory has predicted, which researchers have later determined to be true?

Thanks.

[snip]

I have my own list of answers, but I’d like to hear those of this group.

Comments

ari-freedom: “one problem with the front loading hypothesis is that it also seems to imply gradualism” What’s wrong with that?
I'm not an expert in these matters but may I venture that it only implies micro-gradualism (variations in the phenotype), that is, starting from a fully formed genome? Please, correct me if I'm wrong.Mapou_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

In response to post 14 ID predicts that there are characteristics that, when those characteristics emerge and the origins are known, are the result of design. IC and SC are two of those characteristics (there could be more). Humans make cars which exhibit IC and cars are a product of design. This can be falisfied. For instance, if one can show that IC and SC can emerge independently of design (and independently of already existing IC and SC structures) that would falsify the notion that IC and SC reliably signal design. If it can be shown that there are no characteristics that reliably signal design, that would falsify the notion that design can be reliably detected.Bettawrekonize_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

33 mike1962 because that's not what the fossil record is telling usari-freedom_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

DaveScot wrote:
Being a proponent of ID by way of ancient front loading of the genome I was very pleased to see the results of this experiment but hardly surprised by it. I’d been expecting this result. I also expect to see genomic information coding for phenotypic features that were never expressed by the ancestors of the organism.
Dave, let me see if I get this right. Are you saying that ID predicts that all the information needed for an organism to adapt to its environment via natural selection is pre-programmed from the beginning and is not the result of random mutations (as per Darwinian evolution theory)?Mapou_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

I think the easiest prediction for ID is to follow up on Behe's ideas from the Edge of Evolution. Namely, there is a limit to what natural processes can do and we expect to find that in the world around us. For example, in the future when the genomes are mapped for all mammals and there exists mappings of multiple variants within each species, what will be found in these gene pools. It would then be possible to look at the gene pools not only of the species but of the genera and families. NDE would predict new variations increasing over time at the species level and thus the gene pools of the genera and families would exhibit greater variation over time but ID would predict less variation over time at the species level as the main cause for species formation is loss of information, not gain of information. Of course there will be both but if the gain of information is small and trivial in terms of implications for evolutionary biology then ID is vindicated and NDE falsified as a generator of novelty. The basic NDE prediction is that novelty will appear at the species level and eventually lead to new families and orders. But if the evolutionary tree is getting thiner at the edges and not thicker then ID is vindicated and NDE falsified. There is research going on today that is investigating this which is why I say there is much ID research proceeding in biological laboratories even if it is not designated as such. Every time a biologist maps a genome of a species or multiple members of a species, he/she is doing ID research.jerry_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

Davescot 29: Why isn't lateral sequence transfer in the recent past a plausible explanation?mike1962_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

ari-freedom: "one problem with the front loading hypothesis is that it also seems to imply gradualism" What's wrong with that?mike1962_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

one problem with the front loading hypothesis is that it also seems to imply gradualism, but unlike Darwinism this would be pre-programmed like the gradual development of an embryo.ari-freedom_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

DaveScot,
"And just for the record, the Tiktaalik prediction speaks only to evolution by common descent not evolution by chance & necessity. Try again. ID does not dispute common descent."
So you are saying that the dna for all creatures for all history existed in the first life form? If not then there are some gaps. How do you explain these gaps?Peter_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

DaveScot (29), I'd agree that front-loading would be a good prediction for ID. I think my question to that would be, when did the front-loading occur? If it was front-loaded at or near the origin of life then ID would need to explain why the fossil record shows increasing complexity over time, rather than having complex features crop up all over the fossil record, even at the early stages, which is what one might expect from front-loadinng. To give an example: there have been occurences of chickens being stimulated to produce teeth ("hen's teeth"). Those teeth were reptilian in nature, as might be expected from an evolutionary origin. They did not produce mammalian teeth. So the question for front-loading advocates is, if front-loading is true then we can predict that chickens can be stimulated to produce mammalian teeth (because the genes, being front-loaded, are already there). That is a clear and specific prediction. Surely a research programme could work on that? On your comment: "ID does not dispute common descent." I think this is one of the things the ID Movement needs to clarify. Some (e.g. your good self, Mike Behe) don't dispute it. Others (William Dembski, for example) seem to. Why the disagreement? How will William Dembski answer that in his interview? PaV, I simply don't agree with your comment that a fossil can be interpreted any way you please. Like the rest of science, inetrpretations of fossils are peer reviewed and criticised by the expert community and a consensus opinion emerges once there is sufficient data. If you have an explanation that fits the evidence then the community will concur; if you don't then your opinion is just your own and essentially of no sscinetific relevance. To say that most fossils Darwinists search for are hoaxes in simply untrue - there are quite literaly millions of fossils in museums, and the number of "hoaxes" would amount to a handful. In a few hours I can find literally hundreds, possibly thousands of fossils on beaches a couple of hours drive from me - are you seriously saying that these are hoaxes? I think you miss the point about the search for Tiktaalik. According to evolutionary theory there ought to have been transitional species between fish and the earliest land-dwellers. Given that the fossil record shows and absence of land-dwellers in earlier strata and the appearance of land-dwellers in later strata, it follows logically that the transitionals should have fossils represented in strata intermediate between them. Also, one would expect the transitionals to appear in strata derived from a river or shallow water where they could transition to land. By combining these time and environment limitations the researchers could find the most suitable strata in which to search for the transitionals. And they succeeded - a big plus for evolutionary theory. Converesely, I see Tiktaalik as a negative for ID. If the designer has designed fish, and then wants to design something for the land, why bother with a transitional? Why not just design land-dwellers and cut out the middle-man (or middle-fish, if you like). That is what ID needs to explain: if ID is true then why Tiktaalik?Clarence_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

Clarence, The whole history of Darwinism is that evolutionists have gone looking for a particular fossil and they always find it. (Of course, later on they're shown to be hoaxes.) But that's because you can interpret any piece of fossil you find in any way you please. In Henry Gee's book, "Deep Time", he makes this very point. What does Tiktaalik represent? It represents some kind of aquatic form that has digits. But sea anemones have the gene for forming digits. So what is the point of Tiktaalik? Has Darwinism "proved" that the "environment" brought about the gene for digits? I hardly think so. It very likely demonstrates prediction #6 in my earlier post, #18--that is, there should be plenty of environmental triggers. So your adventurers went to a specific type of environment and found a particular type of fossil. Whose prediction does it fulfill?PaV_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

Clarence Just one example of an ID prediction: The ID front-loaded genome hypothesis predicts that a mechanism exists for preserving unexpressed genomic information for geologic periods of time. In a recent experment 1.5 million base pairs of non-coding DNA containing over a thousand highly conserved sequences between mice and men were deleted from the mouse. There was no detectable difference between the GM mice and their unaltered parents. The experimenters were stunned. They expected to find all kinds of problems in the GM mice which they could then use to infer the function of the conserved sequences in humans and possibly get a handle on a large number of genetic defects in humans. That result put a huge gaping rent in the chance and necessity theory. Natural selection can't act on unexpressed genomic content. If natural selection didn't conserve those sequences over 180 million years of divergent evolution between mice and men what the heck did preserve it? That question was shrugged off. The researchers were interested in ways to isolate and identify the function of DNA in humans and were not at all interested in DNA with no evident function. So instead of trying to figure out what worked to preserve that DNA they instead abandoned the mouse genome and started comparing sequences highly conserved between men and fish, men and reptiles, and men and amphibians. The scientific establishment at large seems to have little interest in testing the chance & necessity hypothesis. Isn't that just precious? Being a proponent of ID by way of ancient front loading of the genome I was very pleased to see the results of this experiment but hardly surprised by it. I'd been expecting this result. I also expect to see genomic information coding for phenotypic features that were never expressed by the ancestors of the organism. Tantalyzing bits and pieces are being found. Stuff like genes that code for quadriped limbs in radially symetric organisms is one that comes to mind. And just for the record, the Tiktaalik prediction speaks only to evolution by common descent not evolution by chance & necessity. Try again. ID does not dispute common descent. It disputes evolution by chance & necessity.DaveScot_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT}

Following on from the comment about nature being the key to advanced technology (indeed it already has) I feel that one often overlooked prediction of ID could be the key to a wonderful breakthrough. It's a little complicated but bear with me. We know that ID predicts a line between micro and macro evolution which is uncrossable. This therefore means that elements of the DNA code are being protected from change. Now there are several, very real ways in which this can be done - evolutionists, of course, simply assume that nothing is happening so they don't bother to research these - but I reckon that the coolest of these is the notion of molecular shielding. There are several ways that DNA nucleotides can be damaged - radiation is the most infamous one, but chemical damage does it too. If molecular shielding exists to protect nucleotides from macroevolution, then it must be capable of not only deflecting radiation, but also has a physical component to prevent unwanted chemistry. It's a perfect forcefield on an atomic scale. The possibilities if we could get access to this power are amazing... we're looking at totally real forcefields capable of stopping both matter and radiation. The US military would kill for stuff like that. Even better, because it is nano scale to begin with, it can have more mundane, practical function in materials; wire shielding, radiation suits, overalls.Venus Mousetrap_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

we don't just see a discontinuous tree, we see a discontinuous bush. There's a lack of clear cut phylogeny. What used to be clear cut (remember the horse sequence?) eventually gets messier. The prediction is that evolutionists will eventually throw out the rest of their favorite examples and appeal to "sister branches" and convergence We see all the phyla appear front loaded in the beginning and no new phyla emerge as time progresses. For example, ~500 vertebrate fish (Haikouichthys) were found in the early Cambrian in China. D. G. Shu et al., “Head and Backbone of the Early Cambrian Vertebrate Haikouichthys,” Nature, Vol. 421, 30 January 2003, pp. 527, 529. What about finding a vertebrate in the ediacara? http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s984724.htm and a year later http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1266616.htm "NANCE HAXTON: That fossil, only six centimetres long, is now believed to be the oldest vertebrate fossil on earth at 560 million years old. It ultimately proves that the origin of all complex life goes back much further than previously imagined. Shaped like a tadpole, the creature had muscles, a head, a fin on its back, but most importantly a backbone." If OOL was a natural process we would expect multiple origins over time. A natural OOL could not predict biologic universals. Totally expected if they were the result of common design. We should find that most observed cases of microevolution are really rigged and not the result of rm/ns. Spetner gives a whole list in chapter 7 in his book Not by Chance. He didn't put antibiotic resistance in his list but perhaps we now can. Look in DoL page 296 note 36: "In fact, a strict Darwinian explanation for antibiotic resistance seems to be more the exception than the rule. In times of environmental stress, bacteria go into a programmed defense that constitutes a targeted search for gene combinations that will enable at least a few of the bacteria's descendants to survive (the genetic changes here are therefore not random mutations as understood within neo-Darwinism)..." We can predict we'll find a mechanism for these directed mutations triggered by an environmental cue.ari-freedom_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT}

Barry A (23): To give you just one example - evolutionary theory was used to predict where and in what rock strata the Tiktaalik fossil would be found. That is why the researchers went to the time, expense and inconvenience of looking in northern Canada. I think William Demski's prospective interviewers are looking for that kind of prediction for ID. But I haven't seen anything that specific coming from it yet.Clarence_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
01:34 AM
1
01
34
AM
PDT}

BarryA wrote:
Help me out here. What does Darwinism predict?
The way I understand it, Darwinian theory predicts gradual evolution, common descent and that all species can be classified so as to form a gapless family tree. The sudden appearance of huge numbers of fully-formed species in the fossil record soundly falsifies the gradual evolution hypothesis. Killed at the starting gate.Mapou_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

"Help me out here. What does Darwinism predict?" That some atheists may become intellectually fulfilled.shaner74_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT}

Help me out here. What does Darwinism predict?BarryA_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

Taking ID broadly, it predicts signs of intelligence. After that, you can make a bunch of lower-level predictions. Front-loading, DNA, molecular machines, etc.geoffrobinson_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

(8) Just as a computer must "compile" a program, there must be some kind of chromosomal system that associates the various "parts of the program" in a deterministic way. That is, the right parts have to be in the right place, and connected to one another in a 'logical' way.PaV_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

(7) Using the analogy of a computer program, one would expect what I call "subroutines", or, put another way, various parts of the genome that are used for a variety of purposes in an "on-demand" basis. These "subroutines" would be part of the "regulatory" system of the genome.PaV_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

Greeting again! Science requires that nature be intelligently design so it can be intelligently investigated. This is a prerequisite for science that is all to often forgotten. If nature was not intelligently designed then no matter how much we investigated it, we would find it incomprehensible. It is precisely because it is designed that we can understand it.Unlettered and Ordinary_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

(1) As already mentioned, "junk-DNA" would completely undermine ID if it turned out to really be "junk". But, of course it isn't. (2) A fair-level of "front-loading" would be expected. When they find genes for the expression of digits in sea anemones (sea squirts?), this throws Darwinism for a loop, but is almost an expectation for ID. (3) A complicated level/levels of regulation. If "junk-DNA" is not junk---as ID fully expected---then, concomitantly, it should have a function. The most likely function is that of regulation. When you consider that the ratio of non-coding to coding DNA is 48 to 1, then you must also expect an incredible level of regulation. (4) Since we're dealing with "information", ID would expect "error-correction" for DNA (let's remember that the Darwinists would be hoping for the opposite---gotta have lots of variation, you know). (5) Again, because we're dealing with "information systems", one would expect high levels of redundancy built into the genome. (6) Lots of environmental triggers: if you're designing life that must deal with huge temperature and climatic changes, then there must be a way for the genome and the environment to interact.PaV_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

Greetings! I do not know what predictions need to be made. Design is everywhere in nature and it is not hiding. Not only is it functional but is looks good as well. Intelligent Design is really self explanatory, nature is intelligently designed and it is this design in nature that requires an explanation. This is not a new paradigm to science. Before and after Darwin many of the great science giants searched the design in nature and with results that changed the world. They were not seeking to explain away God but uncover his handy work. Nothing we humans have ever designed and manufactured even comes close to what is found in nature. One predictions I have for ID is that nature holds the keys to advanced technology for us humans to unlock. In every living thing at lease one technological advancement waiting to be discovered. Properly understood and utilized, all the organisms that make up our eco-systems will propel human intellect to places we cannot imagine. If that is not Intellegent design then all engineers and artists are all frauds. I further predict that the tech found in the organisms is there specifically for human intellect and use. This is really a rule for science, but why not nature. I look at it this way, if I were a being whose intellect towers infinitely over every other being, but to whom were my children, I would design nature to teach and amuse them, to inspire and instill a sense of awe in them. The design I would have put in nature would be specifically for them and comprehensible to them.Unlettered and Ordinary_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT}

DarelRex, in 14, mentions I’d like to disagree with the “talking head” about the idea that a theory about things that happened in the distant past necessarily must have predictive value, to be science. I'll agree with this. But, even if it isn't a prediction about what happened, there is a need for the explanation to be internally consistent with the other claims of science (or to be strong enough to displace them). My point is that the internal consistency is demonstrated by correlation to other predictions that were played out. The method, at least for science is: Observe an event, conjecture an explanation, deduce a prediction from the explanation, test the prediction, validate or debunk the conjecture. (From wiki, on Scientific Method.) I would hope that the predictions of ID are of the type that can be tested - like some of the claims about probabilities that aren't so extreme or obvious.Q_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

How does Tom Cruise get past this kind of vetting?Gerry Rzeppa_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

I don't think some of those are really predictions of ID -- for example, is irreducible complexity predicted by ID, or is it just something that most likely requires ID? I'd like to disagree with the "talking head" about the idea that a theory about things that happened in the distant past necessarily must have predictive value, to be science. Does the idea that the universe started 15 billion years ago with a big explosion have predictive value, or is it just the most direct inference from the observed redshifts of distant objects? If ID is compatible with the evidence, and no other theory of how life got to its present state is, then ID wins scientifically (at least for now) whether it has predictive value or not. Or to put it another way: If the correct explanation of where life came from (whatever that may be) happens to have no predictive value, does that make it scientifically impossible to answer the question of where life came from? Predictive value, while certainly preferable to none, is not an absolute requirement of a scientific explanation.DarelRex_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

I guess I must be the exception among ID advocates. I think we are doing ourselves a great disservice by focusing on the design while ignoring the designer. I think this shows a lack of faith in the ID community. Sorry, that’s how I feel. We are engaged in a nasty war (don’t kid yourselves) against an entrenched and determined enemy. And we are the attackers. The way I see it, we cannot win this war the way we’re going about it. The enemy owns the territory. They have impregnable fortresses and giants in their midst. They own the educational system and they own the media. Unlimited propaganda and unmitigated deceit are their weapons of mass destruction. Sure, many of us have shown great personal courage but that’s not going to cut it. We won’t stand a chance if we think we can fight this war on our own. The enemy will crush us like bugs. In my opinion, the most important falsifiable prediction of the ID hypothesis is the existence of a designer or a group of designers. If you truly believed in the existence of a designer, don’t you think that, given his vast intellect (nobody is going to design complex life forms by being stupid), he would have anticipated this battle a long ago and would have left us the means to fight it and win it? Where is your faith? If you want to know how I think we can engage the enemy in open warfare and kick some ass, take a look at my blog. PS. Dr. Dembski, you are being set up for a fall, in my opinion. I would decline the offer if I were you. Now is not the time. One man's opinion.Mapou_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

- Polyfunctional DNA encoding is one I believe DaveScot made. - Creature variation limited to either pre-existing ("built in") or superficial changes, vindicated by Behe's EoE work on the malarial parasite.Atom_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

ID would predict 1) Fx of Junk DNA 2) Fx for the appendix 3) That prokaryotes did not evolve from eukaryotes due to constraint issues: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/312/5776/1011 4) That Human chromosome 2 and primate genome argument is not viable due to design constraints. 5) Genomes of "primitive" creatures like the Jellyfish can be more advanced then many contemporary species. 6) OOL (there's gotta be stuff here)jpark320_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply