Patrick's blog

Core ID and ID-compatible hypotheses have various predictions. For example, there’s the confirmed predictions related to junk DNA.

Predictions of non-functionality of "junk DNA" were made by Susumu Ohno (1972), Richard Dawkins (1976), Crick and Orgel (1980, Pagel and Johnstone (1992), and Ken Miller (1994), based on evolutionary presuppositions.

By contrast, predictions of functionality of "junk DNA" were made based on teleological bases by Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004).

These Intelligent Design predictions of are being confirmed. e.g., ENCODE's June 2007 results show substantial functionality across the genome in such "junk" DNA regions, including pseudogenes.

These predictions are further detailed in: Junk DNA at Research Intelligent Design.

http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org
http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Junk_DNA

Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project.
The ENCODE Project Consortium, Nature 447, 799:816 (14 June 2007) doi:10.1038/nature05874
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7146/pdf/nature05874.pdf

There are other predictions such as the genetic nature of the platypus, the predictions about designer drugs, long-term preservation mechanisms for conserving information that is not currently implemented, and retroviruses being capable of being used to implement designed changes. At this time the scientific research we have so far does not provide conclusive positive evidence for some of these predictions, although there are tantalizing glimpses that such predictions may become known to be true. There’s also some types of observed changes that happen so rapidly and repeatedly that they would seem to defy being within the domain of strictly Darwinian processes. But such research is just beginning. (And Ken Miller claims that ID cannot make predictions and research cannot occur…)

But then there’s the predictions specific to ID-compatible hypotheses such as front-loading.

An IC machine cannot, by definition, be the result of a direct Darwinian pathway which is gradualistic. Direct means that the steps are selected for the improvement of the same function we find in the final machine. IC deals ONLY with Direct pathways, but does not rule out Indirect pathways. An Indirect Darwinian pathway is a series of small changes which have to come about independently, each having positive selective pressure for a different type of function, and then they all indirectly come together to form a new whole.

How to measure the informational content or "quantitative measures you might use to describe CSI" is summarized as such in regards to biology:

If life spontaneously diversified at body plan level from microbes [500k - ~ 5 millions of DNA base pairs, each capable of storing 2 bits; and, BTW, that capacity is what Shannon info is about] to men, we need to credibly see how the required functionally specified, complex, organized fine-tuned information came to be.

Thought this was interesting:

http://origin.arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070910-science-gets-its-youtube-on-with-scivee.html

Since they're allowing videos from students perhaps some that frequent here would be interested in contributing to SciVee? Of course, they do have the ability to moderate so try to keep your contributions as neutral as possible. As in, no "Darwinists are " type videos. ;)

ID proponents say that Darwinian processes DO function BUT are only capable of making minor changes. The latest research by ID proponents is attempting to ascertain the exact limits of unguided Darwinian processes. This brings us to the State of the Debate, where I'll attempt to show you where events currently have taken us.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNKMTTP938HTSPI

http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNKWOEF4DT51SV2

The amazing part is that the critics don't even seem to comprehend where ID proponents are coming from, nor have they read the ID literature.

This site is primarily intended to service the needs of the users. Now that the technical problems preventing people from being able to use OE are over I thought it'd be good to ask what you, the users, would like to see at OE.

Apparently some errors crept into the system that were preventing people from making comments or blogs. We've fixed them now so everyone "should" be able to post.

Due to the ever-increasing number of trolls we've implemented major changes to the OE user system. When a person first registers, they have very few privileges, and their comments must be approved by a moderator. When we think that a user is a positive contributor to the site, we can "promote" them to the next user level that removes many of the restrictions. This will prevent trolls from being able to sign up easily and run amuck before a moderator can spot them.

Right now very few user profiles have been "promoted". I'll be going down the list and updating these profiles soon. There may also unforeseen bugs with the new system. So if you're experiencing difficulty making blogs or comments just Private Message myself or one of the other moderators (Samuel, Micah, Bill, O'Leary, etc).

I thought I'd point out the following to those so enamored of Science as the source of being mankind's hope. Unfortunately, people are involved so there is corruption. I won't name names but even some ID proponents exhibit dubious behavior.

Now the below segment is pulled from Michael Crichton's novel NEXT. It's somewhat fictional...except where it's not. It's a semi-fictional story based upon “Scientist Admits Faking Stem Cell Data,” New York Times, July 5, 2006, various issues of Science, and other news sources. While fictional it does serve as an interesting conversation starter.