[Bishop_Malachi]

My understanding is that ID has made functional predictions which are verifiable (and have been corroborated). For example, ID researchers made the prediction that all genetic material in a chromosome set (the genome)is designed for a purpose. This inclused the so-called "junk-DNA". This appears to have been demonstrated within the last two to three years.

ID hypothesizes that biological systems are the product of intention rather than luck and law. This hypotheisis is open to be disproved by scientific method. To reject it simply on principle is a philosophical point, but it is not justified by scientific method.

Design is assumed by biochemists who "reverse-engineer" biochemical machines, that is, take apart such systems in search of the "design decisions" that are built into their architecture. Design should be rejected (or accepted) based upon data. It should not be gerrymandered out of science, just because the methodological naturalists get uncomfortable with the concept of a "designer".

[steve-b]

ID hypothesizes that biological systems are the product of intention rather than luck and law.

Scientific predictions must address facts, not interpretations.

[Virginia-American]

For example, ID researchers made the prediction that all genetic material in a chromosome set (the genome)is designed for a purpose. This inclused the so-called "junk-DNA". This appears to have been demonstrated within the last two to three years.

There's a thread on this very topic: see Post 19

These guys removed mega base pairs from mouse DNA, the mice bred and had fertile offspring, and the researchers couldn't find *anything* wrong with them.

Doesn't *prove* that the missing DNA didn't have *some* use, but does cast a bit of doubt on the ID-inspired speculation.

I said "ID-inspired speculation" instead of "prediction of ID theory" because there is no agreement about the hypothetical designer's abilities or motives.

For example, some say it is God, but Behe swore that it could have died millions of years ago, as far as he could tell.

The speculation that there is no junk DNA is premised on a particular version of the hypothetical designer. What are these assumptions about it? Why shouldn't there be junk?

[Filo]

For example, ID researchers made the prediction that all genetic material in a chromosome set (the genome)is designed for a purpose. This inclused the so-called "junk-DNA". This appears to have been demonstrated within the last two to three years.

The same prediction may have been made by scientists. The difference is that they would have proved it. This doesn't, in any way, support the concept of a creator. All it means, maybe, is that the system that created the genome is quite efficient. I do believe (note, I'm not stating a fact here) that the assumption is wrong anyway. There is far more in the genome than is needed to build the life it inhabits. I could be wrong on this but the only way I'll find out is from scientists exploring. IDers don't do that.

To reject it simply on principle is a philosophical point, but it is not justified by scientific method.

It absolutely is something you can reject based on the scientific method. If the hypothesis isn't provable by experiment and if it doesn't suggest experiments to advance that proof than it's junk and can be safely ignored. Your statement is just that.

Design is assumed by biochemists who "reverse-engineer" biochemical machines, that is, take apart such systems in search of the "design decisions" that are built into their architecture.

No it's not. . .

It should not be gerrymandered out of science, just because the methodological naturalists get uncomfortable with the concept of a "designer".

I'm not uncomfortable with a designer, just with one for which there is absolutely no proof.