Atheists tell us that one way of knowing whether what you are doing is “science” is, “Is it testable?” Does your method of inquiry include making a prediction and then seeing if your hypothesis will fulfill that prediction. For those who believe that only science can reveal truth, this is a VERY important step.
Intelligent Design theory follows this route. Before I get to that, let me point out a couple other areas that the scientific concept of ID covers.
. The case for ID is based on empirical evidence. I’ve given you almost two weeks of empirical evidence beginning with the first post called, “Nothing Did It.” This same post gives an example of the digital code that is found in every cell of every living object. As well, ID examines irreducible complexity of molecular machines as well as the circuits in all living cells. ID examines the pattern and order of appearance of groups of organisms in the fossil record. ID investigates the fine tuning of the universe and the constants and qualities and laws of physics. Not only the information storage capacity of DNA but the decoding and transmitting system of Proteins is examined in ID. Intelligent Design is, at it’s base, founded on the commonly accepted observations of the world around us.
For the most part, the majority of the posts in this series have been an example of one means of testing in ID. That is, testing the causal adequacy of competing hypothesis. Darwin himself used this method. Oooo. As a result, we saw, or at least those willing to see, found that ID explains better than Chance, Chemical Necessity and RNA reproduction the interdependent information processing system that is found in each and every living cell.
Acceptance or rejection of competing theories is made based upon what we know from experience. ID is not just a known cause of large quantities of specified complexity. ID is the ONLY known cause of large quantities of specified complexity. That means ID theory fulfills two important scientific criteria; that of causal adequacy (It can do the job) and causal existence (It has done and is doing the job).
Back to predictions. Let’s compare material evolutionary prediction and ID prediction on one important area. That area is junk DNA. I doubt that’s a new term to anyone commenting here so I won’t go into a lengthy explanation. In short, however, junk DNA is DNA that doesn’t code for proteins, as does the DNA we’ve all come to know and love.
As you might guess, those who believe that cells have arisen by trial and error predict that there should be a lot of, well, leftover junk. This is useless stuff that a trillion years or so ago would have been a brand new idea and as good as cells got back then.
Michael Shermer says, “Rather than being intelligently designed, the human genome looks more and more like a mosaic of mutations, fragmented copies, borrowed sequences, and discarded strings of DNA that were jerry-built over millions of years of evolution.”
“Why Darwin Matters” 75
“The critics of evolution like to say that the complexity of the genome makes it clear that it was designed. But there’s a problem with that analysis, and it’s a serious one. The problem is the genome itself; it’s not perfect. In fact, it’s riddled with useless information, mistakes, and broken genes. Molecular biologists actually call some of these regions ‘gene deserts,’ reflecting the barren nature.”
Ken Miller, “Only a Theory” 96-97
“If you were designing the genomes of organisms, you would not fill them up with junk.”
Philip Kitcher, “Living with Darwin” 57
There’s more of this kind of thing, but you get the idea. Junk - waste products and such are exactly what natural selection predicts with regard to the genome.
Not so with Intelligent Design. ID predicts that most of the non coding sequences in any genome should perform some biological function. That’s not to say that there won’t be any broken or degraded DNA. Remember, Intelligent Design does not deny evolution or natural selection. What ID predicts, however, is that functional DNA should far out number nonfunctional DNA.
. Evolution of the first cell predicts a lot of junk DNA.
. ID of the first cell predicts a minimal amount of useless DNA.
What is now known is that the non coding DNA, formerly thought to be junk by evolutionists, actually performs a massive amount of important biological functions - just as ID predicts.
Remember this line, from the atheist Keith? “If we [atheists] find evidence to show something we thought was wrong, we don't hold on to the original belief like leach.” Ya, right.
Just as Stanley Miller’s faux experiment re: amino acids forming in early earth’s reducing atmosphere remained on the books long after it was known to be wrong, Shermer, Miller (Kenneth) and Kitcher have continued to spread the predictions and the false “confirming findings” re: junk DNA long after it’s been known that their predictions and their theory was wrong. How wrong are they?
Non coding or junk DNA:
. Regulates DNA replication
. Marks sites for programmed rearrangements of genetic material
. Regulates transcriptions
. Controls the interactions of chromosomes with the nuclear membrane
. Influences the proper folding and maintenance of chromosomes
. Controls RNA processing, editing and splicing
. Modulate translation
. Regulates embryological development
. Repairs DNA, and
. Aids in immunodefence
This is a long, long way from being junk as natural theories of evolution predicted.
It’s bang on as ID predicted.