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

I was thinking the same thing as edj, to me that is the most compelling example!gore_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

Peter, Did ID really predict the big bangs of life? Does gradualism, even if it were supported by the fossil evidence, prove that evolution is undirected, requiring no intellegence? That's the claim of Dawkins, for instance. But must ID show an absence of gradualism? Doens't Behe show that gradualism is no help in explaining non-telic origins of IC?landru_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

To expand on the comments of edj, The single most important prediction of Intelligent Design is that, although there might be the occasional degeneration of either macroscopic or microscopic structure, most structures should serve a purpose. Thus most organs should not be vestigial, and most DNA should not be "junk DNA". There were those bold enough to say this when there appeared to be evidence to the contrary. As time has gone on, it appears that the ID position has been vindicated compared to the position that most DNA would prove to be purely selfish, or that we should expect to find multiple examples of organs that were useful to our evolutionary ancestors but not to us. This is an instance where not only is design theory making falsifiable predictions that appear to be corroborated, but where the Blind Watchmaker hypothesis can be legitimately considered a "science stopper".Paul Giem_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

The obvious one is that "junk" DNA is not junk.edj_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

Well so much for formatting by the preview. To note [off-topic] the Wordpress plugin Ajax Comment Preview provides an exact format preview.Apollos_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

ID predicts that many, if not all, innovative technology achievements of human kind (read agency) will have direct parallels in, or derivation from, biological systems.ID predicts that the information content (CSI) of living systems will decline, not increase, over time.ID predicts that the input of random, non-specific information into a functional or nonfunctional system will ever only degrade or inhibit that system in all but a few trivial and insignificant ways.Apollos_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

Intelligent Design Theory predicts that the trademark evidences of design typically recognized by normal humans will be both ubiquitous and compelling - so much so that opponents will have to obtusely warn their disciples against acceptance of the obvious (as Francis Crick has done: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved"). In simpler words: if things are intelligently designed, they should appear so. They do.Gerry Rzeppa_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

That after "billions and billions" of generations of any particular biological entity no new morphology will occur due to random mutations and natural selection.tribune7_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

Here's a few: 1) Origin of life: Intelligent design can predict that science will never be able to explain how this complex life arose (homochirality). This prediction has been confirmed every year for decades. 2) History of life: Life is shown too complex to develop slowly over time. Life will appear rapidly and remain in stasis. This has been confirmed countless times, i.e. the big bangs of life. 3) Irreducibly complex living forms exist. 4) Molecular machines. 5) Evolutionary convergence.Peter_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

ID predicts that neo-Darwinists will get so upset at a group of people following the evidence where it leads and unraveling their shaky theory that they will accuse ID of being a new brand of Creationism and not science. :) Sorry.....Gods iPod_{January 14, 2008
January
01
Jan
14
14
2008
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply