ID Creationism’s Predictions

ID creationism even solves math problems!

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.

8 Responses to “ID Creationism’s Predictions”

  1. ParrotLover77 Says:

    Did you read the comments on Denyse O’Leary’s post? Some poor guy was trying desperately to get her to understand why predictions are important and the difference between what she was predicting (philosophical) and what a scientific theory should predict, and her only response to his very long, very well written post that just happened to include a short paragraph on D&E (to get the ID person riled up I’m sure) was…

    Corn, your choice of D and E abortions (as “science?”) speaks volumes, actually. “Science” is about killing kids and “philosophy” is about the odd views of people who are upset by the fact that one does it?

    As for my predictions, I am simply waiting to see if they pan out. I only argue about such things with publishers.

    WOW. Do they miss the point entirely because they are stupid, or are they playing dumb and playing on people’s emotions to change the subject?

    I’m honestly not sure.

    Sure, ignore the entire previous 10 paragraphs to focus in on your key heart-string issue. Excellent science.

  2. Ron Britton Says:


    Yes, I saw that exchange. Pretty bad. That is a typical ploy. They’re steering the discussion away from the parts they can’t answer.

    Maybe the only way to leave a comment on those sites is to do it in one or two sentences. Sure, they can still dodge the issue, but it is much more apparent.

  3. blue collar scientist Says:

    So THAT’S why my traffic is up today….

    Thanks for the nod. 🙂 I’m sure some better-qualified individuals can come up with some other predictions of ID that have similarly been proven wrong, and critique and improve my own, but I’ve done what I can.

  4. RayCeeYa Says:

    This got me thinking. Maybe we should thank all these IDers for asking these questions. Every time they find “holes” in current evolutionary it provides motivation for evolutionary biologists to do the research necessary to patch up those holes.

    They may have the wrong answers but they are asking the right questions. Isn’t that what science is all about?

  5. Ron Britton Says:


    Real scientists are much better at asking probing questions that find the limits of current knowledge. Most of the so-called questions and objections that the creationists come up with are actually misunderstandings, misinterpretations, mischaracterizations, or outright deceptions on the part of the creationists.

    Nevertheless, anybody is entitled to ask questions of science. That’s how the laymen learn (if they’re actually willing to listen to the answers).

  6. RayCeeYa Says:

    OK, I suppose I should have phrased that “They’re asking good questions but coming up with terrible answers.”

    The major flaw in any “creation science” as I see it is that the IDers/Creationists have an agenda. They already know the answers they want to see so they fit the data to make those answers plausible.

    Real scientists accept experimental data even if it contradicts common knowledge. My favorite example of this is the Michelson–Morley experiment. Michelson and Morley spent years trying to confirm the presence of the aether that was supposed to permeate the universe. Their experiments ultimately failed and forced physicists to create a new theory of an aetherless universe. The end result was the theory of relativity.

    Nobody had to die for it. No one built museums dedicated to aether theory. scientists just accepted the new data and moved on to a better understanding of the universe. A creationist probably would have invoked the hand of god and said he was speeding/slowing the beams of light to explain why the aether wasn’t detected.

  7. Ron Britton Says:


    I’m glad you reminded me of the ether story. That’s an excellent example of a popular theory that was discarded as contradictory evidence came in. I think you’re right about how the creationists would have clung desparately to it, despite all contradictory data (This is, of course, what they do with ID. It’s ironic, because this is exactly what they accuse real scientists of with evolutionary theory.).

    Intelligent Design creationism is a defeatist attitude. The ID creationists will study a problem right up to the point where it becomes difficult, then they throw in the towel and say “goddidit”. That type of “science” will never advance our knowledge.

  8. Evolved Says:

    IDiot prediction:
    We know that the Designer (NOT GOD!) did it because we see Design (not Creation) and we know this because the Designer (NOT GOD!) did it!