Kerby Anderson
Dr. Casey Luskin (Discovery Institute) was in my studio recently to talk about evolution’s failed predictions. I was able to find an article he wrote in the past about “Design vs. Descent: A Context of Predictions,” which you might want to read to get a fuller explanation.
He begins with a quote from the famous philosopher of science Karl Popper, who wrote that all scientific theories must be falsifiable. Certainly, a scientific theory that is taught in the public schools should have empirical evidence and thus be falsifiable.
Casey Luskin discussed four lines of evidence. Here are two of them.
One line of evidence is biochemical complexity. A prediction of descent would be that there would be few machine-like biologically complex structures in the cell. A prediction from design would be that we should find machine-like irreducibly complex structures that cannot be easily explained by a gradual evolutionary process. He described such irreducibly complex structures and then argued that the best theory to explain the data is design.
Another line of evidence is biochemical functionality. The prediction of descent would be that the genetic code in living creatures would contain a significant amount of genetic baggage. This would be “junk DNA” that is left over from failed genetic adaptations. The prediction of design would be that the genetic code is not full of functionless “junk DNA.”
As we have increased our knowledge of genetics, we have discovered that the so-called “junk DNA” has an important function within the cell. He argues that this functioning DNA would be expected or explained under a design paradigm.
If we look at the predictions and the scientific data, we discover that design is a better explaining theory than descent.
This post originally appeared at https://pointofview.net/viewpoints/design-or-descent/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=design-or-descent
