CONT. . When there is found to be little “junk DNA” then the evolutionary explanation for development is in question. The ID prediction on “junk DNA” is scientifically valid contrary to your statement. Again, I should point out the fact that Darwinianists hijack design by attributing the designed robustness of life to mutation and selection. ID predicts that the many designs of life allowing robustness are pre-programmed into the genome. Beyond the design "evolution" ceases!

Scott, your claim is disingenuous. I am sure there have been claims of new discovered function in the genome by many mainline scientists. Just because some discoveries that showed some "junk DNA" to have function does not invalidate the ID prediction that "junk DNA" will be found to contain much function. I would go on to claim that there is little “junk DNA” and the supposed “junk DNA” is useful in the development of the individual life-form. When we look at the parts and complexity of the human body, there are no machines made by humans that compare to it. Another reason why your claim is disingenuous is because Dembski approaches the argument from an informational point of view. Darwinians believe that there needs to be junk DNA and that this Fisherian information (possibility of holding useful information) changes into algorithmic information over time with much function. ID proponents maintain that as science advances the junk DNA will be shown to contain function.

I would only like to comment on the claim that ID allowed for the 'prediction' that junkDNA has function. I contacted the DI a few months ago and asked for an example of such a predciction. John West replied,and the earliest such prediction he could provide was given from Demski in 1998. A literature search, which took me all of about 5 minutes, revealed that 'evolutionists' had, in fact, not only been speculating and hypothesizing about function in noncoding DNA DECADES before Dembski's ID-based "prediction",there were many publications documenting discovered function - well before the 'prediction' was ever made. The earliest paper I found in my 5 minute search was from 1975 - 23 years before Dembski 'predicted' function in junkDNA (I should point out that the term 'junkDNA' did not come into use until after 1972 or so;there are many publications from before 1975 on junkDNA that do not use the term junkDNA). Bottom line - be very wary of claims of ID-based "predictions".

David thanks for your response. I responded in part because you gave a general response. I don't know how you can denigrate ID for the supposed promises made by some researchers and writers. In the world of the sciences, it goes where it goes. The researcher may think they know the direction of the field, but we typically don't knock them if they get it wrong. The basic theory of ID has not been shown to be wrong - though many in the sciences bring outlandish charges against ID which can be refuted. "ID can make no predictions," they say. "ID cannot be falsified," they say without even considering if evolution really is falsifiable. You must be kidding if you think ID has any serious level of funding compared to evolution. If you would dare to apply for a grant from the NSF in ID research, do you think you would get any funding? That place is so prehistoric that they even have head hunters running around their halls. I think you miss the real purpose of ID -establish ID.

Tom - Since, as far as I can tell, I am the only David who has posted, I assume that you are referring to me in your recent posts. I reread my post and wonder why you thought that I was referring to you. I was not making any specific reference to you. I read all of the posts and saw that many of the writers chose to ignore the central premise of the article. My reading of the ID literature going back to Darwin on Trial and Mere Creation suggests that the implicit promises at the beginning of ID have not been fulfilled. It is not that ID lacks funding. They have enough funding to travel the country promoting the idea that we should teach the strengths and weaknesses of mutation and natural selection as forces to drive evolution. Maybe they should put some of that money toward actually doing science. If their original goal was to weaken the teaching of evolution, then they have succeeded. If their original goal was to develop a coherent theory of creation, then they have failed.