Intelligent Design (ID) theorists often receive accusations and complaints from Darwinists that ID doesn’t make any predictions. Here is one that I received in a debate:
“ID makes no predictions at all, in fact, and for this reason (and others), simply fails to be a scientific theory.”
Of course the only reasonable reaction to such a glaringly false statement is some hearty laughter! … Or perhaps tears of sadness over such an ignorant statement. Yet this single statement is repeated over and over by Darwinists and not one of them can back it up. Willful ignorance and copy/pasting from talk origins and the usual web dens of Darwinian fanatical folly.
“When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, ‘All that was new was false, and what was true was old.’ This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism.” -Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.
As for ID predictions, here is a short summary view:
1. Ways Designers Act When Designing (Observations):
- Take many parts and arrange them in highly specified and complex patterns which perform a specific function.
- Rapidly infuse any amounts of genetic information into the biosphere, including large amounts, such that at times rapid morphological or genetic changes could occur in populations.
- ‘Re-use parts’ over-and-over in different types of organisms (design upon a common blueprint).
- Be said to typically NOT create completely functionless objects or parts (although we may sometimes think something is functionless, but not realize its true function).
2. Some Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):
- High prescriptive information content will be found throughout the genome – (already proven)
- Machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found – (already proven, and no K. Millers poor rebuttal is no refutation at all)
- Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors – (already known)
- Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms – (already proven)
- The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless “junk DNA” – (being proven over & over today)
- Few intermediate forms will found giving a clear and gradual pathway from one family to another – there are none so far Most of the claimed ancestors will be shown to have serious problems – already historically proven
- Mechanisms for error detection and correction will be abundant within the genome of all organisms – (already proven)
- Mechanisms for *non-random* adaptations, coherent with environmental pressures, will be found
- So called vestigial organs will be found to have specific purpose and usefulness – (already proven)
- Few mutations will end up being beneficial in the long run – (already proven)
- Genetic entropy will be found to cancel our most if any beneficial mutations
Many other predictions could be listed.
Worse than that though is that any genuine biblical creationist model would also have to predict genetic entropy and thus loss of information in most mutations and therefore eventual mutational meltdown (extinction events) in all species! Which is exactly what we’re finding out today!
Dr. John Sanford, author of the Darwinism killing book “Genetic Entropy”, was asked what the Darwinist response to his book was. His answer was, “complete silence.” Curiously, while there are now about 200,000 known mutations that are directly related to diseases, how many data bases do you know of documenting the beneficial ones? My guess is either none or precious few, and if any at all exist they must be trivial.
Now before the Darwinists start the usual yelling of, “20/20 hindsight!”, most of these predictions were made decades ago and many before the current ID movement. Besides a theory’s predictions are inherent within it and not invented afterwards. Predictions are logical consequence of a theory, if it is correct. Not all of the logical consequences will necessarily be stated officially even though inherent. That means that any “20/20 hindsight!” complaints have no validity anyway.
Now let’s look at a dictionary definition of the scientific “theory”:
“A scientific theory is an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world. Unlike the everyday use of the word theory, it is not an unproved idea, or just some theoretical speculation. The latter meaning of a ‘theory’ in science is called a hypothesis. -http://www.whatislife.com/glossary/t.htm
Now compare the above definition of ‘theory’ to the following quote:
“The history of organic life is indemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else.” -Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007
Thus, according to the definition and the remarks of a well known evolutionist, Darwinism is so inundated with speculative hypotheses that it doesn’t really even qualify as genuine scientific theory!
Not only so, but Darwinisms predictions have been falsified over and over again. Failure after failure is easily seen on the predictions level of this failed hypothesis, yet the theory still MUST be true. Why? Well because “there is no God” and “no sensible God would have done it that way.”! Religion, that’s why.
Thus, the Darwinists are always crawling back to their materialist metaphysics to seek security from the glaring light of the discoveries of molecular biology, genetics and information sciences, that more and more reveal levels of algorithmic sophistication that simply are not possible without intelligence.
Highly functional networking within any system doesn’t just happen as we know from information systems theory.
The image below shows a map of functional networking in the genome and gives a small idea of the highly specified complexity of the genome: