Still More Junk Talk: A Challenge to Readers, and A Challenge to Casey Luskin

By Mike Dunford

It's another day, and [Casey "The Energizer Bunny" Luskin is at it again](http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/07/richard_gallagher_frames_intel_1.html), claiming that ID successfully predicted that "junk DNA" would be found to have a function. He has yet to explain how and why he believes that "Darwinism" somehow stifled research into those areas of the genome, and ignores the fact that scientists routinely use our understanding of evolution, common descent, and natural selection to identify areas of the genome to identify non-coding regions that are likely to have function. He does, however, provide us with an explanation for why he thinks that Intelligent Design somehow "predicts" function for all of the so-called "junk" DNA:

Intelligent design begins by studying the types of complexity produced by intelligent agents. We observe that intelligent agents produce things for a purpose, that is, to fulfill some function. This leads ID proponents to an expectation—yes, a prediction—that DNA will not tend to contain meaningless junk but will contain structures that have (or once had) a function for the organism. ID does not lead us to the expectation that our cells’ DNA will be largely non-functional garbate. The hypothesis—that “junk”-DNA will have function—is obviously experimentally testable. In fact, I know pro-ID biologists studying the function of junk-DNA who were inspired to do such research due to intelligent design. One biologist in particular is not yet tenured, and so I will not disclose his/her name. Suffice it to say, for this biologist, finding function for non-coding DNA was directly inspired by intelligent design.

If that explanation looks familiar to you, it should. [It's pretty much the same one he gave last month](http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/wired_magazine_unashamedly_mix.html). This leads me to my two challenges - one that's addressed to most of you, and one just for Casey:

Read more (at The Questionable Authority, where comments may be left):