Monday, May 07, 2007

Luskin is SO predictable!

Duracell bunny. Broken record. Bushism. Some things just never stop going on and on. Yet again, we have Casey Luskin claiming that ID predicts something about junk DNA:

Science wouldn't publish his letter, but it now appears that another prediction of intelligent design has been validated.
As I've stated numerous times, intelligent design "theory" is incapable of making predictions. Even William Dembski thinks so:

Yes, intelligent design concedes predictability.
Perhaps Luskin didn't get the memo?

Edited to add: John Pieret at "Thoughts in a Haystack" still has the energy to explain in detail what is wrong with Luskin's claim.


At 8:11 PM, Blogger RBH said...

He got it; he couldn't read it. It had words with more than one syllable.

At 4:13 AM, Blogger John Pieret said...

NEWSFLASH! ID's prediction that the sun will rise this morning is confirmed!

The point of a prediction in science is that it has to confirm something that either was previously unknown or is in contradiction to an opposing theory.

In the section of the article Luskin points to from the Talk Origins Archive, Doug Theobald's
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, Doug is discussing the molecular evidence for common descent. He notes that the potential falsification of transposons as evidence for descent is the same as for pseudogenes. Doug then goes on to note:

... confirmation and potential falsification are independent of whether a specific pseudogene has a function or whether it is completely non-functional, for the same reasons explained in the prediction on morphological vestiges. Like any other genetic element or organismic structure, evolutionary opportunism may take a pseudogene and press it into a new and different function.

In other words, evolutionary theory does not predict in any sense that transposons would be funtionless, so what some crank once said about "junk DNA" lends no support to ID and this still-valid evidence for common descent in no way retarded the discovery of function in transposons.


Post a Comment

<< Home