William Dembski writes:
It's evident, then, that Darwin's theory has virtually no predictive power. Insofar as it offers predictions, they are either extremely general, concerning the broad sweep of natural history and in that respect quite questionable (Why else would Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge need to introduce punctuated equilibria if the fossil record were such an overwhelming vindication of Darwinism?); and when the predictions are not extremely general they are extremely specific and picayune, dealing with small-scale adaptive changes.
Well, he's right you know.
The predictions of evolution are either specific or general.
Why this obvious truism, which applies to every science, should make all the predictions of evolution negligible, Dr Dembski does not explain, possibly because it doesn't.
William Dembski writes:
But what about the predictive power of intelligent design? To require prediction fundamentally misconstrues design.
Damn right.
That would be treating ID as science, which would be silly.
William Dembski writes:
Yes, intelligent design concedes predictability. But this represents no concession to Darwinism, for which the minimal predictive power that it has can readily be assimilated to a design-theoretic framework.
Anything can be "readily assimilated" into a framework which makes absolutely no predictions. Though calling such a thing a "framework", I feel, invests it with a dignity which it does not possess.
™ Version 4.2
