Lately I’ve been reading and listening to various commentaries on Intelligent Design, from those in favor of it and those rabidly opposed, and those in between. I’ve been trying to get a grip on the general attitude towards it. I’ve decided that the general attitude is that it is tantamount to creationism. I disagree.

Of all the criticisms the one that is both most common and most persistent is that Intelligent Design is not science. The simple argument from those opposed to ID is that it is not falsifiable. Now, I don’t think this is actually the case, but rather than make a positive argument that it is, I want to instead ask how the alternative is falsifiable. The alternative, of course, is Darwinian Evolution. If DE is real science, how would it be falsified?

Perhaps we could look at the fossil record? DE hypothesizes that innumerable transitional forms will be found in the fossil record. To put it bluntly, this ain’t so. The fossil record, for an evolutionist, would more accurately be called the fossil non-record. It does not match in the slightest the expectations of the evolutionary theory. The Darwinist will claim that they have thousands of transitional fossils. And, this is true, but its a word game. The transitional fossils they have are transitions between two species of clams (which, the observant will note, are both clams), for example. There is nothing in the way of transitions between major body forms, which is predicted by the theory and required to support it. It would appear that the fossil record falsifies Darwinian Evolution.

Or, maybe its the molecular evidence? Passing over the question of how, exactly, DNA and the genetic code (an informational system) evolved in a random, Darwinian fashion, what does the DE theory predict? Casey Lusken, from The Center for Science & Culture (a pro-ID group), recently quoted Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling answering just this question…

It will be determined to what extent the phylogenic tree, as derived from molecular data in complete independence from the results of organismal biology, coincides with the phylogenic tree constructed on the basis of organismal biology. If the two phylogenic trees are mostly in agreement with respect to the topology of branching, the best available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution would be furnished. (”Evolutionary Divergence and Convergence in Proteins.” in Evolving Genes and Proteins, p. 101. (1965))

In short, the prediction was that the molecular ‘tree of life’ will largely agree with that of the one built upon body forms. And, again, it just ain’t so. The molecular data gives us something quite different, if it can even be considered a coherent phylogeny. The molecular phylogeny, then, would appear to falsify DE.

There are many other areas of evidence we could turn to, but let’s get to the point. The point is this: Darwinian Evolution is not falsifiable. It is a theory that can explain everything, whether expected or not. But in explaining everything, it explains nothing. A scientist can come up with a hypothesis, like ‘if evolution is true, then X will be observed’. X can then not be observed, and yet evolution has an explanation for it. As Dave Heddle put it not too long ago,

All evolutionary post-dictions, either explicitly or implicitly, have the luxury of boldly proclaiming how what has already happened was inevitable. Evolution is in a class by itself in proving that the past unfolded as Darwin’s marionette. They are decidedly less adept at predicting the next act.