Continued Uncommon Junk Talk

On Uncommon Descent, defender of ID against creationist nonsense, Davescot makes the following comment about a posting by Paul Nelson about the fascinating complexity of the genome:

DaveScot wrote:

I still fail to see how ID predicts no junk DNA. Random mutation definitely happens and if it’s good at *anything* it’s good at producing unorganized, non-functional crappola. It can produce crap out of nothing and it’s even better at making crap out of stuff that wasn’t crap to begin with.

Of course, Davescot has failed to follow the ID game play which includes the fallacious argument that ID predicted Junk DNA to have function. A poster name BFast is quick to remind DaveScot of his technical foul.

Bfast wrote:

Bottom line, significant IDers have said for a long time “there’s value in that junk” and the darwinists have said the opposite, that “there cannot be value in that junk because there would be too many mutations per generation to be managed by RM+NS.”

The IDers said it, it proved to be true, it’s a confirmed prediction.

BFast is Right, Wrong and Wrong. Not too shabby for an ID defender.

Right in that ID proponents have argued that based on theistic considerations, Junk DNA could not possibly be junk. He is wrong that this is a prediction of ID which cannot state more than “design is that which we do not fully understand” and he is wrong as to how Darwinists have seen Junk DNA.

And the myth continues…

Which shows once again that despite the valiant efforts of DaveScot, ID is still scientifically vacuous.