# Is ID science? Redux

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [December 17, 2019, 4:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063 "2019-12-17T16:22:58Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 11

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 4:03pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/204 "2019-12-22T16:03:36Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> > God is a rational being. As such, he wouldn’t build a genome with vast amounts of useless, junk DNA.
> 
> TH: When were you granted this divine knowledge to be able to say what God would or wouldn’t do? Like leaving so many pseudogenes and unexpressed genes in the genomes of so many species?
> 
> How did you determine God is 100% rational 100% of the time?

Gil I’m still waiting for an explanation of how you know what God would or wouldn’t do.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_Callen](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_callen/32/897_2.png) [@Michael\_Callen](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Callen)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 4:04pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/205 "2019-12-22T16:04:14Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> If it did not disappear, then it would still be present and there would be no reason for there not to be “duplicable testable evidence” for its existence.

“It’s existence” is not what is in question here. It is potential meddling by the “it” that is in question.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> Wrong. I, for one, disagree with that claim. Take an example of something that most people would call a “miracle” if it happened:

Same thing here. There is a way to empirically test whether the body was dead and then alive, but the vehicle that would have caused such an event is supernatural and outside of science (even observation.) You could only test the death to life aspect. The cause would be outside of science because it is supernatural. Literally outside of nature.

Take this discussion and apply it to the ID world. They are saying that some intelligence has intervened so as to cause things to be how they are. No one is looking for the existence of the intelligence itself to determine whether or not this has happened. Instead, they are looking to the living object purportedly affected by the intelligence. You have changed subjects here.

The point that I was making (and @ronsewell also) was that there are separate domains for these kinds of events. Science is not capable of handling both kinds.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_Callen](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_callen/32/897_2.png) [@Michael\_Callen](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Callen)\
**Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 5:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/206 "2019-12-23T17:22:39Z")

</div>

Split this topic on December 23, 2019, 5:22pm UTC

9 posts were split to a new topic: [The Fossil Record and Evolution](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-fossil-record-and-evolution/9088)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 4:10pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/208 "2019-12-22T16:10:35Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> For most introns, the c-value paradox in miniature — intron lengths varying dramatically between closely related species — kills off the general case.

Might it not kill of the general case for common descent instead?

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > Forest M Mims III below as a promising line of research for elucidating the function of large amounts of « junk DNA »
> 
> Small amounts, perhaps. Essentially, it might explain the sizes of a few introns. For most introns, the c-value paradox in miniature — intron lengths varying dramatically between closely related species — kills off the general case. And of course it’s completely irrelevant for non-genic sequences.

How do you know that these NOPs strings are completely irrelevant for non-genic sequences? As for me, I can see for example that they could be essential for proper timing of gene expression during development.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> The computer code analogy is a blind alley.

With all due respect, I am wandering whether you are not falling into « the pretense of knowledge » pitfall.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 4:13pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/209 "2019-12-22T16:13:55Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> With all due respect, I am wandering whether you are not falling into « the pretense of knowledge » pitfall.

Or you have no idea what you’re talking about and are trying to bluff your way through using Behe’s lame excuses.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 4:18pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/210 "2019-12-22T16:18:27Z")

</div>

> [@Michael\_Callen](#):
>
> Same thing here. There is a way to empirically test whether the body was dead and then alive, but the vehicle that would have caused such an event is supernatural and outside of science (even observation.) You could only test the death to life aspect. The cause would be outside of science because it is supernatural.

How do you know that? Have you actually encountered such a situation and tried to determine the cause? Has anyone?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 4:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/211 "2019-12-22T16:20:13Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> Your view isn’t share anymore by many biologists that used to believe the junk DNA thesis, as you can see below.

Yes, that’s unfortunate. So many people into genomics are ignorant of the relevant science. How interesting that you believe all these people about junk DNA based purely on credentialism, but discredit their views on evolution. You need to stop getting all your information from creationist cherrypicking. I advise checking out Larry Moran’s blog for a corrective.

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> Larry Moran blogged that most evolutionary biologists he meets no longer share his view

I don’t think that’s what Larry actually said. Molecular biologists, perhaps.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 4:23pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/213 "2019-12-22T16:23:03Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> Objectively false! Your view isn’t share anymore by many biologists that used to believe the junk DNA thesis

There are certainly many people who have been misled by the ENCODE hype fiasco, but even the ENCODE leaders have been out there walking back their claims.

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> ## Perspectives change
> 
> As new research revealed higher-than-expected levels of function

It didn’t. Some researchers(ENCODE) mistakenly confused biochemical activity, aka low-level transcription, with function. But as explained in my previous post, the mere fact that most DNA is transcribed doesn’t show it its functional. As revealed [by experiments](https://thefinchandpea.com/2013/07/17/using-a-null-hypothesis-to-find-function-in-the-genome/) that show that the cellular transcription machinery will actively transcribe even random DNA designed to have no function.

Which knowledgeable biochemists had known about for almost half a century already at that point.

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> , some former junk DNA proponents changed their minds:

And they were misled. They, too, had the misconception that junk-DNA was supposed to mean completely chemically inert DNA. But it never did. They were uninformed about the concept, has got the history of it completely wrong because they’ve been reading people like John Mattick who also never understood it, combined with the fact that a lot of bad science press has been mistakenly hyping every new finding in genetics as the Next Big Thing that “overturns everything we used to think”. And the concept of junk-DNA never fails to catch people’s attention and generate clicks. Sadly a lot of otherwise well-meaning researchers have been misled by these click-bait articles too.

All you have succeeded in doing is find a list of people who didn’t understand the case for junk-DNA, don’t know it’s history, and don’t understand how the inference were made in the first place, or what evidence for and against it is.

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> Richard Dawkins’ own selfish gene theory led to the expectation that most of the human genome was junk,

LOL. No it didn’t. Your understanding of this subject is truly abysmal if you think so.

Dawkins “selfish gene theory” is really just another description for the gene-centric view of evolution. It made ZERO predictions about the proportion of the genome that should constitute junk DNA.

If you disagree, then find the prediction. Give a reference to the theory of selfish genes being employed to derive a prediction about how much junk DNA there should be in the human genome.

Let me save you some time: **No such reference exists.**

What actually happened, in real history instead of the extremely misleading pseudohistorical nonsense you’re actively participating in propagating here, is that the “selfish gene theory” about the [gene-centric view of evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution) made sense of the discovery that a large proportion of the human genome constitutes accumulated remnants of selfish genetic elements such as retrotransposons.  
Helped make sense of, it was not “predicted” by “selfish gene theory”.

None of the references you give actually support the claim. Dawkins sefish gene concept is just a theory of adaptive evolution that says selection is best understood to occur at the level of genes, not at the level of species or populations. It’s called the gene-centric view of evolution.

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> So it doesn’t make sense for Dawkins to say “it’s exactly what a Darwinist would hope for.”

Yes it does, you’ve got it completely wrong. The idea is that if the DNA is truly nonfunctional and does nothing for the organism, then it has an energy cost in terms of replicating it during cell division, and a cost associated with expressing it, in turn leading to the naive prediction that to get rid of it would be beneficial because it would save energy for the cell. So _a priori_, without looking at the strength of the selective pressures actually involved, a Darwinist would predict no junk-DNA because selection would work against it’s existence.

Now once other factors are included, the naive prediction changes.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![stcordova](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/stcordova/32/2030_2.png) [@stcordova](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/stcordova)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 4:24pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/214 "2019-12-22T16:24:23Z")

</div>

> Is ID science?

I’ve said, \*\*“NO” for years.

I’ve not been quite forgiven by my colleagues for saying so.

Saying however, “origin of life is so improbable and violates normative expectation of accepted laws of chemistry and physics that it is a statistical miracle” is science.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 4:25pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/216 "2019-12-22T16:25:58Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> Might it not kill of the general case for common descent instead?

No. That makes no sense, and it suggests you don’t understand the data at all. The mechanism by which large indels occur is well understood.

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> How do you know that these NOPs strings are completely irrelevant for non-genic sequences?

What would they do? What do you think is the point of timing?

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> I can see for example that they could be essential for proper timing of gene expression during development.

How would they do that?

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> I am wandering whether you are not falling into « the pretense of knowledge » pitfall.

Yes, you are wandering quite a bit.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 4:27pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/217 "2019-12-22T16:27:03Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> As for me, I can see for example that they could be essential for proper timing of gene expression during development.

With all due respect, I am wondering whether you are not falling into « the pretense of knowledge » pitfall.

Your ability to dream up ad-hoc explanations for what this DNA could be doing is not evidence that it _is_ functional, and does nothing to rebut [the actual evidence that it is nonfunctional](https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004351).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_Callen](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_callen/32/897_2.png) [@Michael\_Callen](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Callen)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 4:41pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/218 "2019-12-22T16:41:22Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> How do you know that? Have you actually encountered such a situation and tried to determine the cause? Has anyone?

It seems that you simply want to argue for argument’s sake. That’s fine. The example that you used was a “miracle” that caused an event that does not happen naturally (a decapitated head rejoining itself to a dead body, and the person coming back to life.) If this is in the realm of science (as you are professing) then go ahead and describe how you’d approach it, empirically.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 4:55pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/219 "2019-12-22T16:55:08Z")

</div>

> [@Michael\_Callen](#):
>
> Hello Bill: I don’t wish to pile on, but you compared ID to GR above. You suggested that both were theories and both testable to a certain extent, at least. I asked what your operational definition is then of Intelligent Design, such that it would be similar (both a theory and testable) and you replied with the quote above. I am certain that you must have an operational definition of ID and I would hope that you might share it here. Just explain what it is that is a theory and parts of which may be testable. Thanks.

Hi Michael  
The similarity is that both theories have testable mechanisms. In the case of GR it is mass that is causing what we observe. Planets moving and the and the attraction out bodies feel to earth. In the case of ID mind is what causes certain things in nature especially what we observe in the cell such as long functional sequences (DNA/Proteins) and the complex arrangement of organelles. Humans act as test vehicles for the design hypothesis as we know they are capable of sophisticated design. In the same vein originally the sun along with measurement equipment was used to test general relativity. The key difference is GR has a model as gravity is, unlike a mind, highly deterministic.

The ID hypothesis is that mind is the direct cause. If a natural cause is found then the theory is falsified as a direct cause of the specified event even if it might be the ultimate cause. GR falsified design as the reason for the motion of the planets as Newton hypothesized design involvement as his equations did not predict their exact movement.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_Callen](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_callen/32/897_2.png) [@Michael\_Callen](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Callen)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 5:03pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/220 "2019-12-22T17:03:05Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> The ID hypothesis is that _mind is the direct cause_. If a natural cause is found then the theory is falsified as a direct cause of the specified event even if it might be the ultimate cause.

Thanks very much for this reply, Bill. Is there a more-developed operational definition than what is italicized above?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 5:04pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/221 "2019-12-22T17:04:30Z")

</div>

> [@Michael\_Callen](#):
>
> Thanks very much for this reply, Bill. Is there a more-developed operational definition than what is italicized above?

Not that I know of Michael. It is work in progress.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 5:08pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/222 "2019-12-22T17:08:24Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> The similarity is that both theories have testable mechanisms.

ID offers no testable mechanisms

> [@colewd](#):
>
> The ID hypothesis is that mind is the direct cause

How do you test the idea a mind can directly cause the physical manipulation of matter? Why hasn’t anyone in the ID community actually tested the claim?

> [@colewd](#):
>
> If a natural cause is found then the theory is falsified as a direct cause of the specified event even if it might be the ultimate cause.

Under that criteria ID has already been faslified. Thanks for that admission which I’m sure you will promptly forget.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_Callen](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_callen/32/897_2.png) [@Michael\_Callen](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Callen)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 5:12pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/223 "2019-12-22T17:12:17Z")

</div>

> [@Timothy\_Horton](#):
>
> Under that criteria ID has already been faslified.

Wouldn’t this falsification apply to each individual event that is suspected to be caused by an intelligence? If so, there would be an infinite number of opportunities for it to fail, and it would never be falsified. Which may also push it outside of the realm of science, right?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 5:14pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/224 "2019-12-22T17:14:45Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> The ID hypothesis is that mind is the direct cause. If a natural cause is found then the theory is falsified

First of all, there’s no reason to think the two concepts “mind” and “natural” are contradictory.

Second, no it isn’t falsified by that. How can you keep getting this wrong? Please allow yourself to think this over Bill.

There could simply be two possible causes for the same phenomenon, and then you’d have to try to determine which one was responsible.

I could have laid rocks outside in some pattern intentionally, or they could have sorted like that due to some combination of physical process of rain, wind, erosion and so on.

You are saying we should think “a mind” **can** cause X. Right? And then you’re saying that if we find that a “natural process” also **can** cause X, then the “mind can cause X” hypothesis is falsified.

But clearly it isn’t. If we have good reason to think “a mind” can cause X, that doesn’t mean that a “natural process” can’t. It it entirely possible it can too.

I must repeat myself again here: If the model does not predict anything, then it is not testable. A model can **only** be testable if it says that something _should be a certain way_ , and reciprocally that it should _not_ be some other way.  
Because only then, when the model says “it should be like _this_ , and _not_ like that” can it become possible for observation or experiment to contradict the model.

It is clearly NOT a prediction of any design model for X, that a “natural process” could not produce it.

A model that accounts for something is supposed to explain how X came to be by invoking some mechanism that explains in detail how it comes to exist and takes the form and attributes it does.

Supposing you could give such ID account for some entity, you would be explaining how this mind achieves the results that it does. Perhaps you have some model of how thinking works at a physical or material level, or even if we speculate that the mind is immaterial, how it can interact with them material and produce physical effects. You would then use this model to explain what happens in the real world to bring X into existence. This atom over here, moves over there, and shares electrons with this other atom, etc. etc.

At no point in such a design account, material or immaterial, natural or supernatural, is there going to come as part of the account for X, that “but X could not occur naturally”. That’s just not a sensible prediction of a theory of ID.

I just don’t understand how you can keep droning out this obvious, **obvious nonsense** day in and day out.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 5:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/225 "2019-12-22T17:17:04Z")

</div>

> [@Michael\_Callen](#):
>
> Wouldn’t this falsification apply to each individual event that is suspected to be caused by an intelligence? If so, there would be an infinite number of opportunities for it to fail, and it would never be falsified. Which may also push it outside of the realm of science, right?

Why would that push it out of the realm of science? Why is everyone trying to arbitrarily kill this theory? The reason is some in science want to be in the ideology business which is difficult as the design hypothesis keeps science honest.

Science has great difficulty with origin events without the design hypothesis.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 5:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/226 "2019-12-22T17:17:15Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Humans act as test vehicles for the design hypothesis as we know they are capable of sophisticated design.

That is simply false and will remain false no matter how many times you make the same logical blunder. What humans are capable of in no way shape or form provides evidence biological life was dreamed up and physically manufactured by a disembodied supernatural mind.

Scientific facts and logic don’t slow down your fantasizing even a little bit, do they?

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063.md?page=10)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063.md?page=12)