On Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution

One of the enduring problems with origins science (for the non-bible believer, that is) is that it is untestable, because the presumed conditions at the time of the "origin" do not currently exist. One of the simplest ways I can think of to at least add credence to ID (or specifically, special creation) is this: When we encounter the unknown, what is the presumption? Is it junk, or does it have purpose? Have we yet ran into something that we can thoroughly conclude, with surety, has no use?

The specific example I have in my mind is the case of junk-DNA. Previously, it was thought that the part of the DNA chains we didn't know how to examine (90+% of the DNA) was just evolutionary leftover junk. We now know that it's at least a complex and overlapping sequence of stuff to regulate gene expression (there may yet be more that it does, we don't know it all yet). If you are in the ID (or in my case, SC), you'd probably think - DUH, of course it's not all junk. If you're in the evolutionary camp, you're (or were) probably surprised by this.

Other cases of this are things like thought to be vestigal, like tonsils, tailbones, and the like, which once thought to be useless, have turned out to have real use. Yes, there are still things we don't know what they are for, but being in the SC camp, I think I'm making a safe assumption in that a reason for their existence will eventually be found (assuming Jesus doesn't return before then), and that they are not some evolutionary leftover.

Once upon a time, we thought a cell was just a gob of goo. Once upon a time we thought that the atom was the smallest particle. Now we know better. Apply those ideas to things we do not yet understand, or think are useless, or simple. If you start with the notion that it was designed, you don't wait ten years to start looking.

Finally getting off my Adipose Tissue

I finally decided that it was about time to start writing again....