INTELLIGENT DESIGN EVIDENCE
The Evidence Filter: Example 2
Example 2: "Universal Code" of DNA
In his book The Fifth Miracle, The Search for the Origin of Life, evolutionist and
mathematical physicist Paul Davies examines the question of life's origins,
commenting:
    "Today, biologists insist that Darwin's guess was basically correct: life
    on Earth has descended from a single common ancestor."
Why? Davies continues:
    "Perhaps the most convincing evidence for a common origin is that the
    genetic instructions are implemented using a universal code. It is too
    much to believe that all these complex and highly specific features
    arose independently many times."
Yes, it is too much to believe. By applying The Evidence Filter, however, we
see that there is another scientific alternative. Taking Davies' "most
convincing evidence" of the "universal code" of genetic instructions, we can
apply The Evidence Filter . . .
Question 1: Does the "universal code" of DNA evidence actually support a theory
of unintelligent causation (i.e., is the evidence consistent with what one would
expect to observe if evolution were true, evolution being a naturalistic, unintelligent
process such as Darwinism)?

Answer 1: Yes. Assuming, as Darwin did, that a first living organism existed in the
first place, the universal code of genetic instructions is consistent with what one
would expect to find if the theory of descent with modification from a common
ancestor was true.

Question 2: What inferences does the evidence actually support (i.e., what can
reasonably or actually be inferred from the observations put forth as evidence, as
opposed to what is purported to be proven)?

Answer 2: The universal code of genetic instructions exists in living organisms.
(The supposed derivations of code from one organism to another are inferences
required by the theory but not otherwise required by the evidence.)

Question 3: Does the evidence also support alternative theories, such as
intelligent causation, as in intelligent design theory (i.e., is the evidence consistent
with what one would expect to observe if intelligent design were true)?

Answer 3: Yes. The existence of a universal code of genetic instructions is
consistent with what one would expect to find if intelligent design theory is true.
Common ancestry is also consistent with intelligent design if you view the
designer as a software programmer that is directing mutation rather than having
heritable variations produced by chance mutations or some unknown law.

Question 4: Does the evidence, taken as a whole with other evidence, weigh more
heavily in favor of evolution or an alternative theory?

Answer 4: Taken as a whole, the evidence of a universal code weighs in favor of
intelligent design. The very existence of a "code" weighs strongly in favor of
intelligent design. Indeed, a recent study concludes that the code is the most
optimal of a million other randomly selected possibilities.[1]

Question 5: Does the evidence as a whole, taken together with other evidence,
rule out a particular alternative theory?

Answer 5: Possibly. Taken as a whole, the evidence of a universal "code" that, by
definition, likely requires a "coder" could be construed to rule out Darwinism.
However, whatever the universal genetic code shows, it cannot rule out intelligent
design theory.


Footnotes:

1. S.J. Freeland and L.D. Hurst, The Genetic Code is One in Million, (Journal of Molecular
Evolution, vol. 47, pp 238-248 (1998).