There have been many occasions where I have read articles by ID supporters and have been left asking, “and then what?”. So often there is just half an idea, like a joke with a set up and no punch line.
This article from Evolution News and Views is a perfect example:
There is a LOT that can be nit picked in that article, but I would rather take a more global view. Let’s take these claims at more or less face value, and then ask what it really means for Intelligent Design.
Let’s say that there are a 2,000 more genes in the human genome than previously thought. This would increase the number of genes by 10%, and these genes would probably cover less than 1% of the human genome. Now what? What does this mean for ID?
Let’s say that introns in the yeast genome play a role in starvation, but it isn’t a sequence based function. Nearly any sequence in those introns can serve the same function. Not only that, but it may have no application to the human genome. Now what? What does this mean for ID?
Let’s say that in some species in some situations the DNA methylation pattern of ancestors can be passed on to descendants and affect the phenotype in those offspring. Now what? What does this mean for ID? Do differing DNA methylation patterns explain why humans are different from mice? Is a designer required in order for a CpG to be methylated, or for DNA to be wrapped around a histone?
In all of these cases we have processes that have no observed designer involved. These processes all happen spontaneously and naturally. How does this further the argument for Intelligent Design? Are they so focused on trying to tear down their own strawman version of evolution that they have lost sight of the goal?