Friday, February 13, 2009

That's A Good IDea

There's a lot of debate about Evolution versus Creation versus Intelligent Design. Evolutionists see only one other alternate explanation to life and how it got here: Creation, and they claim it's not science. Most Evolutionists see Intelligent Design as "Creationism in a cheap tuxedo." One of the reasons it's not science, they say, is that it doesn't make predictions.

I knew that to be true of Creationism. Creationism comes from revelation. But Design Theorists claim that Intelligent Design is science. They claim it starts with the data, not revelation. One day I decided to see if I could find what predictions are made by Design Theorists.

I found several predictions, one of which is that "two species will share a complex trait that a common ancestor doesn't have." So, for example, if:
  1. Species A and B both have eyes,
  2. Species A and B both evolved from species C,
  3. Species C does not have eyes, and
  4. Eyes are complex
then it is more likely that eyes were designed than that they evolved - twice - accidentally.

This prediction seems to be based on the idea that just about anything evolving, even once, is highly unlikely. Something evolving twice—independently—is even more unlikely. Especially when you consider that evolution is based on random mutations.

The prediction is also based on the idea that designers tend to re-use already designed parts. (Just ask any Object Oriented programmer.)

So I wondered if this is ever seen in nature. According to Today's Article (in New Scientist) it is.

You'll have to read the article for details.

Now, this could have come about by random mutations + natural selection + time. Either way, this was a prediction made by Design Theorists, and it's been confirmed. It doesn't prove anything about Intelligent Design, Creation, or Evolution. It's just a confirmed prediction.

It does deny one assertion made by many evolutionists: that Intelligent Design makes no predictions.

Note: It is possible that I misunderstood everything in the article. I'm a computer programmer, not a biologist, biochemist, or paleontologist.

No comments: