Mr_Christopher
Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
WAD's "ID Predictions confirmed by researchers":
| Quote | 5
William Dembski
02/14/2008
6:36 pm
Here’s what I had FTE’s PR people pass on to Keith Olbermann’s producer:
—————-
Dear SNIP,
Please pass the following examples of ID’s predictive prowess on to [Keith Olbermann’s producer]:
(1) ID predicts that although there will be occasional degeneration of biological structures (both macroscopic and microscopic), most structures will exhibit function and thus serve a purpose. Thus most organs should not be vestigial, and most DNA should not be “junk DNA.” ID proponents have been saying this from the start, and they are now being vindicated. The human appendix, just in the last months, has been found to serve as a repository of friendly flora to keep the gut healthy. Similarly, seemingly useless “junk” DNA is increasingly being found to serve useful biological functions. For instance, James Shapiro and Richard Sternberg (2005) have provided a comprehensive overview of the functions of repetitive DNA–a classic type of junk DNA. Similarly, Roy Britten (2004) has outlined the functions of mobile genetic elements–another class of sequences long thought to be simply parasitic junk. In this case, ID has made potentially falsifiable predictions and neo-Darwinian theory has shown itself to be a science stopper.
(2) Many systems inside the cell represent nanotechnology at a scale and sophistication that dwarfs human engineering. Moreover, our ability to understand the structure and function of these systems depends directly on our facility with engineering principles (both in developing the instrumentation to study these systems and in analyzing what they do). Engineers have developed these principles by designing systems of their own, albeit much cruder than what we find inside the cell. Many of these cellular systems are literally machines: electro-mechanical machines, information-processing machines, signal-transduction machines, communication and transportation machines, etc. They are not just analogous to humanly built machines but, as mathematicians would say, isomorphic to them, that is, they capture all the essential features of machines. ID predicts that the cell would have such engineering features; by contrast, Darwinian theory has consistently underestimated the sophistication of the machinery inside the cell.
(3) Conservation of information results (also referred to as No Free Lunch theorems, which are well established in the engineering and mathematical literature — see www.EvoInfo.org) indicate that evolution requires an information source that imparts at least as much information to evolutionary processes as these processes in turn are capable of expressing. In consequence, such an information source (i) cannot be reduced to materialistic causes (e.g., natural selection), (ii) suggests that we live in an informationally open universe, and (iii) may reasonably be regarded as intelligent. The conservation of information counts as a positive theoretical reason to accept intelligent design and quantifies the informational hurdles that neo-Darwinian processes must overcome. Moreover, ID theorists have applied these results to actual biological systems to show that they are unevolvable by Darwinian means. ID has always predicted that there will be classes of biological systems for which Darwinian processes fail irremediably, and conservation of information is putting paid to this prediction.
Best wishes,
Bill Dembski |
That is the sorriest shit I've ever read from someone who supposedly has 5 freaking degrees. Isn't one of his degrees something like philosophy of science. Do they not teach you what a freaking testable theory is in philosophy of science classes? Do they not teach you what a freaking prediction is?
The real laff howler is the RE-tard cultists at UD don't even know Demsbki is blowing smoke up their asses on these predictions.
UD is nothing but a room full of dumb asses. Well and a handful of covert operatives ;-)
Anyhow, kudos for finally getting William Dembski, PhD to publicly demonstrate intelligent design creationism has not a single prediction. Maybe that's because before you can make an idc prediction you need an idc theory ;-)
What dunces.
--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson
|
