Yes, that can be said for Richard Owen’s universal common design/archetype from a Divine mind.
For instance, Charles Darwin himself famously complained in a letter to Asa Gray, “I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [parasitic insects] with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars.”
The same goes with so-called design flaws in nature. However, over the course of 30 years, it has been repeatedly found that what initially seemed to be a design flaw or evil design caused by an unguided process turned out not to be the case afterall with increasing understanding of the design.
Richard Owen’s theory also has a history of accurate predictions regarding gaps in the fossil record. For instance, the fossil record has revealed that the observed pattern of no evolutionary change punctuated by rapid biological innovations matches the patterns predicted [47] if a common design/archetype accounts for life’s history and diversity.
Lastly, he claimed humans were unique and did not emerge from ape ancestors. There has been numerous observations that have confirmed human expectionalism where the cognitive abilities of the human brain have not been observed to be present in animal brains nor did they work properly in animal brains through experimentation.
This is why Richard Owen’s explanation can be considered a scientific theory. In contrast, my particular common design model is a hypothesize that flows out of that overarching theory of common design. This leads me to address this…
That is not what you suggested in a different thread…
Every item in that list is subjective except one. It’s a pseudoscientific farce.
The only one that is empirical is:
Prediction: we should determine that most pseudogenes and ERV’s are functional.
(A) We would expect analogous traits to evolve separately between families and orders in response to similar needs.
Not empirical and not different from evolutionary theory.
(B) We expect to find functional ERV’s and pseudogenes between families and orders.
[/quote]
Not empirical and not different from evolutionary theory. Numbers and proportions might make it empirical.
Prediction: over 80% of families and orders evolved separately.
Almost, but only if you can define “species trees” empirically. Since it makes no sense, I doubt you can.
Prediction: The regulatory regions of core gene promoters between over 80% of families and orders are incongruent with species phylogenies (I.e., vertical inheritance).