ID Creationism’s Predictions
As we discussed previously, one of the characteristics of a good and proper theory is that it can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. One of the vexing things about the ID creationists is that they spend all of their time bashing “Darwinism” without ever stepping up to the plate and telling us what works in their theory. In fact, their rabid avoidance to doing so suggests that their “theory” must be completely bogus.
About a week ago, Denyse O’Leary tried to tackle the question of “What does Intelligent Design creationism predict?” She either completely misunderstood the question (quite likely, since she apparently doesn’t understand science) or she was dodging it (quite likely, since her “theory” is bankrupt). Her answers mostly consisted of “Darwinists will be unable to…”.
The people who promote a theory are the ones who are supposed to support it by coming up with some predictions it makes and then going out and doing some research to see if those predictions are true. It shouldn’t be up to the rest of us to do their work for them. Nevertheless, the Blue Collar Scientist has decided to tackle the issue in his article “Intelligent Design Creationism does too predict outcomes!” Go over and read the whole thing. I’ll just excerpt a piece and add some comments.
Intelligent design creationism claims … that different creatures are specially created and are not related.
If that were so, I believe that we would find that these creatures would be made of the most appropriate chemical compounds given their phenotype and environment. But this turns out to not be so – out of a possible thousands of amino acids, all of life’s protein is built by only twenty of them, and all the species in the world can only produce a couple hundred amino acids. Despite this, some amino acids that are not used or made by living organisms would be quite useful to many living creatures today. For example, synthetic amino acids with efficient chelating properties might be quite useful to organisms living in areas with arsenic-contaminated water. Yet such organisms lack such useful amino acids and must make do with less effective chelators.
That is a very specific prediction that flows logically from ID creationism. Too bad the prediction is wrong. Evolutionary theory, however, predicts that there would only be a few amino acids, because evolution repurposes existing materials. It’s much harder to make a whole new material from scratch than to take one that is almost right and just jam it in there or bend it a bit to make it fit.
Everywhere you look in nature, you see this reuse and repurposing of existing materials, often in inefficient ways. Nobody would design things like this.
Go over to Blue Collar Scientist and read the rest of the article. He has some more good examples.