[asa] Re: "junk" DNA

On 6/14/07, Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
> Not so fast, Pim, not so fast.
>
> ID adherents have for some time been saying precisely this: that "junk DNA"
> isn't junk, that it probably does have a function as yet unknown. This
> follows from their overall view of biology, and it's fair for them to
> trumpet this. It is not fair for you to deny them their point.

It's fair to say that IDist, unless they base their views on their God
not being wasteful, have no way to predict the existence or absence of
junk DNA. Their main objection to junk DNA was not founded on a
scientific principle.

In addition, IDists have never really understood the concept of Junk
DNA nor how science viewed Junk DNA.

That IDists can claim a minor victory has no impact on the simple fact
that ID remains scientifically vacuous.
Or explain how ID can 'predict' function for some/all? DNA based upon
first principles. Remember that ID is based on ignorance and a
negative argument. While Science rightly considered absence of
detectable function to be a reason to hold to the null hypothesis,
IDists concluded design.
If this were really such a foundational principle of ID, how come that
it was not IDists but actual scientists who detected the latest
exciting data.
No, their is little reason for IDists to celibrate here, at least
scientifically speaking. From a PR perspective I am sure that
creationists (and function for junk dna IS a creationist prediction)
will be having a field day.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jun 14 12:51:14 2007