Discussion 1 to Talk Back 86
It is not a meaningful prediction
No doubt you think that wilful misrepresentation of science that you reference is meaningful, but it is not.
To argue (as does Sean D. Pitman M.D., author of the article you referenced) that scientists are finding more out about DNA and then to interpret this as a refutation of evolution is not just misunderstanding the science, it is total intellectual dishonesty.
A prediction that "junk DNA" will turn out to be meaningful could be made with just as much validity using a Magic 8-Ball or a Ouija board. Predictions are without value unless they are made on the basis of underlying facts (not pre-conceptions, as in ID.)
Of course Intelligent Design would suggest that what has loosely been referred to as "junk DNA" has a function. If ID is involved, then there should not be a single meaningless codon in DNA, otherwise it would be wasteful. There should not be a single irrelevant molecule in DNA, not a single irrelevant atom - if indeed ID is valid.
On a larger scale, no animal (including humans) would have vestigal organs or vestigal limbs - if ID is valid. So, I assume we can shortly expect a prediction from Sean D. Pitman M.D. that a function will be found for each and every vestigal organ and limb in every animal.
Of course some "junk DNA" will get reclassified. I doubt there is a scientist working on DNA that does not expect that at least some of so-called "junk DNA" will turn out not to be junk, but essential to life. That has nothing to do with ID, it's just that all the scientific research has not been done yet. And finding new function for strands of DNA will not change a single researcher into a rabid IDer.
But as functions are found for some of the unidentified sections of DNA, I will predict this: Not a single function will be identified by an ID researcher - all the discoveries will be made by real scientists with an understanding of science. And then when real scientists have done the work, the ID apologists will then look for ways to deliberately misinterpret it, again.
The question I have for you Rob is this: Given that the science backing evolution is overwhelming and continuously increasing (contrary to the false information peddled by your Sean D. Pitman M.D.) why are you unable to consider that your God works through evolution? Hundreds of millions of intelligent believers manage to do this.
Accepting the scientific findings of evolution does not demand you abandon your God; it just gives you a better understanding of how he might work.