Darwin claimed that a unique inclusively hierarchical pattern of relationships between all organisms based on their similarities and differences [the Tree of Life (TOL)] was a fact of nature, for which evolution, particularly a branching process of descent with modification, was the explanation. In 2009 atheist biologist Richard Dawkins was confident that comparative DNA evidence would support Darwin’s Tree of Life and its idea of universal common ancestry. Dawkins was wrong. Scientists have sequenced a significant number of whole genomes. The evidence concludes that resemblances do not form a perfect hierarchy or family tree. Darwinian evolution is valid, and Intelligent Design (ID) is incorrect. Scientific research now shows data that powerfully fits the ID model of life’s history and strongly undermines the idea of universal common ancestry via mindless evolution. The Trees of Life are full of fundamental, mutual contradictions. Genetic homologies cannot independently establish the Tree of Life. The pair of chromosomes with identical gene sequences derived from one parent are called homologous. An example would be two chromosomes with genes coding for eye color: one may code for brown eyes, the other for blue.
All life forms use DNA (which contains nucleotides) and proteins (made of amino acids). All complex life forms use the same basic building blocks. These universally shared similarities indicate the design of the ecosystem, not common ancestry. Complex life forms use the same essential molecules (e.g., DNA, proteins). This is a standard design process. There is no tree of life process. The same types of parts are used in different designs to meet functional requirements. An intelligent cause may reuse or redeploy the same module in other systems without any material or physical connection between those systems.
Intelligent agents act; they generate high levels of information. The type of information that indicates design is generally called specified complexity or complex and specified information (CSI for short). Let’s briefly discuss this term. A computer-like information processing system where cellular machinery reads, interprets, and executes the commands programmed into DNA to produce functional proteins. A pattern exhibits specified complexity if it is highly improbable and has a specific, recognizable design or structure that can be independently specified. When ID researchers find high CSI in DNA, proteins, and molecular machines, they conclude that such systems were designed. A vast amount of CSI is digitally encoded in a biochemical language in our DNA.
Irreducibly complex molecular machines composed of finely tuned proteins. Exquisite fine-tuning of universal laws and constants. In our experience, do language-based digital code, computer-like programming, devices, and other high CSI structures come from? They have only one known source: intelligence. one available source: intelligence. The argument for design briefly sketched here is entirely empirically based. It offers positive evidence for creation by finding, in nature, the types of information and complexity that we know, from experience, derive from intelligent causes. One might disagree with the conclusions of ID, but one cannot reasonably claim that this argument is based.
