RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (27) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: DI EN&V, Open comments and archive< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 3
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2012,04:54   

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 01 2012,22:46)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 01 2012,10:03)
William A. Dembski, Doctor, Doctor is back at the grindstone with a new 'essay' this morning on EN$V.

I suspect he is obligated to waste a certain amount of electrons per year to keep his DI paycheck. He trotted out this old chestnut, "Intelligent design, as the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence (such patterns exhibit specified complexity), subsumes many special sciences, including archeology, forensics, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence."
The same bullshit for nearly 20 years.

It should be noted that Dembski claims to have predicted ENCODE's "no junk DNA" conclusion back in 1998
The Demise of "Junk DNA": A Confirmed Prediction

What I'm describing here is not purely speculative. In 1998 I predicted on the basis of a design hypothesis that supposed "junk DNA" was in fact likely to have a function and that the term itself was really a misnomer:  
Design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus, on an evolutionary view, we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function.
The recent ENCODE results confirm my prediction and put paid to the useless and misleading term "junk DNA." (See Casey Luskin's review of ENCODE.)
I hope we will we have a TARD fight on priority claims because Shapiro claimed the same for himself and Sternberg. However, according to UD the argument goes back to Michael Denton:
By contrast, predictions of functionality of “junk DNA” were made based on teleological bases by Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004).

Junk DNA is only a prediction of ID if you make assumptions about the designer and the kind of design it employed.

  792 replies since Jan. 20 2011,10:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (27) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]