1. strangerfruit
  2. ID's "clear and daring prediction"

ID's "clear and daring prediction"

By jlynch on June 12, 2007.

Jason’s recent encounter with ID-apologist Tom Woodward spurred me to revisit his book Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design (2006) which I had tossed aside months back due to its breathless, inane cheerleading for ID. Not surprisingly, the talk Jason witnessed follows the book quite closely, so you can save yourself the pain by just reading Jason’s posts [1, 2, 3, 4].

On page 77, Woodward tries to deal with the accusation that ID does not make any predictions. He replies that ID does indeed have a "clear and daring prediction." And what is it?

"Darwinists will not begin filling in plausible, testable scenarios for any of the irreducibly complex cellular systems." (p. 78).

That’s it. Nothing more. A purely negative (albeit clear) claim about what "Darwinists" will not do regarding "irreducibly complex systems". Given that ID proponents have been unable to unambiguously detect "irreducibly complex systems," this is somewhat akin to demanding that zoologists provide scenarios that describe the life history of Bigfoot, and when they dont, claiming that it proves the existence of the big hairy guy. Clear and daring? You decide.

Tags
Anti-evolution
In Their Own Words
Intelligent Design

More like this

Arnhart on ID
I have a student currently working on conservative reactions to the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling. As part of the preparations, I'm having him read Larry Arnhart's Darwinian Conservatism [amaz] and John West's response, Darwin's Conservatives [amaz]. Over at his blog, Arnhart has made the following…
ID Isn't Science, But That's the Least Of Its Problems
Speaking of the intellectual collapse of ID, its other major blog, the Discovery Institute's “Evolution News and Views” also seems to have fallen on hard times. How else to explain the presence of this article, by Steve Laufmann? Laufmann addresses the question, “Is Intelligent Design Science?”…
Luskin on Judge Jones, Round 2
Casey Luskin has responded, apparently, to my post about his seemingly conspiratorial question for Judge Jones. I noted that he had clearly implied that Judge Jones had allowed someone else to write his ruling. The only alternative was that Luskin was making a terrible analogy. Now he says the…
Woodward in Washington D.C. Part One.
Thomas Woodward, author of the new book Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelliigent Design turned up at the Washington D.C. offices of the Discovery Intstitute last night. Since it's alays nice to have an excuse to hang out in the big city, I decided to check it out. There's rather…

"Darwinists will not begin filling in plausible, testable scenarios for any of the irreducibly complex cellular systems." (p. 78).

Aside from the bombador beetle, the human eye, the bacterial falgellum, the blood clotting cascade...

Not only do they make irrelevant predictions, they don't even bother to keep up and see how they turned out. Intellectual laziness incarnate!

I call bull.

How can anybody of sound mind get through 77 pages of that sort of stuff?

It borders on a physical impossibility