[asa] ID vs. Darwinian predictions

Re: [asa] (testing evolution) (was: TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry)Dennis Venema has asked about predictions made by ID.

I have not read the chapter yet, and therefore have no comment, positive or negative, but on pp. 481-497 of Stephen Meyer's new book, *Signature in the Cell*, Dennis can find "Appendix A: Some Predictions of Intelligent Design".

On the Darwinian side, George (Cornelius) Hunter has a website called

http://www.darwinspredictions.com/

which purports to list numerous falsified predictions of Darwinism. I have not yet read this material, and so again make no comment regarding its value.

I care much less about "predictions" than many TE and ID people do, because I think the emphasis on "predictions" is tied up with the desire to prove that ID is or is not "science", and that "science" is frequently invoked in these debates (by all sides) as a tool in the culture wars, and not out of any genuine desire for pure theoretical understanding. One thing that impresses me about Michael Denton's writing is the extent to which he rises above culture-war polemics, and seems completely immersed the activity of acquiring pure theoretical understanding. He wants to know the truth, for the sake of knowing, let the chips fall where they may. This healthy Greek attitude is very rare among writers on the subject of evolution, no matter what camp they are from.

Cameron.
  
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Dennis Venema
  To: Alexanian, Moorad ; Dehler, Bernie
  Cc: ASA
  Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:10 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] (testing evolution) (was: TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry)

  Moorad states:

  "Actually, evolutionary theory is a "theory of everything" and as such really can never be falsified. There are no specific, unequivocal predictions that it makes for it to be logically be tested."

  Well, find the proverbial rabbit in the Precambrian and evolution is falsified. For that matter, find some pollen in the Precambrian.

  Some other predictions for you (just off the top of my head):

  Examination of cetacean genomes will reveal pseudogenic remnants of genes adapted to terrestrial life.

  Sequence comparisons of metatherian and eutherian genomes will reveal greater similarity within each group than across these groups, even for animals that superficially resemble each other due to convergent evolution (for example, marsupial and eutherian mouse-like animals).

  Examination of the human genome will reveal pseudogenic remnants of genes adapted to prior manners of life (for example, genes used for egg yolk production).

  Organisms predicted to be in the same phylogeny based on morphological criteria will also be more similar at the genetic level (both in terms of raw homology as well as synteny). This similarity will include mutations in pseudogenes, and repeated sequences such as LINEs and SINEs.

  I could go on, but I think you see the point. Evolution is easily tested. To paraphrase the Princess Bride, "Genomics for creationists is pain, highness: anyone who says differently is selling something."

  If you want to see a "science" that cannot make predictions, try ID. I have never seen any decent predictions made by that "theory". If anyone ever has, please point them out.

  Dennis

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jul 21 21:38:53 2009