Let's Talk Junk

By Mike Dunford

So-called "junk DNA" has been much [the buzz](http://scienceblogs.com/sample/fastsearch?order=date&IncludeBlogs=49,83,3,11,8,55,64,10,87,60,22,80,15,95,78,52,4,48,45,63,14,25,53,69,50,42,89,5,47,90,71,96,9,62,16,38,67,43,73,81,44,79,23,7,41,46,17,61,82,54,74,92,85,93,21,12,65,86,75,72,6,91,51,&search=junk%20human) lately. A [recent (and outstandingly lousy) Wired magazine article](http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/06/junk_dna) on the topic uncritically printed assertions by the Discovery Institute's lead hack Stephen Meyer that the discovery that some regions of DNA once thought to be functionless do have functions is, "a confirmation of a natural empirical prediction or expectation of the theory of intelligent design, and it disconfirms the neo-Darwinian hypothesis," The author of the Wired article does not provide us with any explanation of how ID "theory" made that prediction, but a more recent article at the Discovery Institute's Media Complaints Division does.

The basis for this astounding prediction (yes, I am using "astounding" sarcastically) is actually pretty simple, as [Casey Luskin explains](http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/wired_magazine_unashamedly_mix.html). "D

esign theorists," he tells us, "recognize that 'Intelligent agents typically create functional things.'" That's right. We can predict that noncoding DNA has some sort of function for the animal because we know that designers usually design functional things. If you have paid any sort of attention to what Intelligent Design proponents have said over the years, I should probably apologize to your next of kin, because there's a pretty good chance that your head just exploded.

For the survivors, here's why the sheer chutzpah of Casey's assertion is enough to cause neurological overload.

Read more (at The Questionable Authority):