Re: Intelligent design vs. natural selection

Pattle Pun (
Wed, 3 Sep 1997 16:03:18 -0500 (CDT)

On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Don N Page wrote:

> Because Intelligent Design supporters seem to make the mistake (in my
> opinion, and presumably in that of many others who have posted messages here,
> such as Allan Harvey's message posted Sept. 3) of assuming that theism is only
> compatible with their version of Intelligent Design, I suspect that Johnson has
> heretofore not proposed any realistic tests because he realizes it would be
> very risky to lay his version open to disproof, so that according to his
> presuppositions (but not to mine), theism itself would then be proved wrong.
> However, since he claims that "intelligent design actually has scientific
> content," I am hoping that he or someone else supporting their version of
> Intelligent Design will back up that claim by proposing a realistic test of it.
One of the ways by which intelligent design theory can be tested is by
way of following the patterns of sequence homologies of macromolecules
that cannot be accommodated by the the monophyletic assumption of the
comment descent hypothesis, but rather by a polyphyletic lineage with a
common pattern (or "design"). Preliminary evidence has already indicated
that the three distinct "urkingdoms" of Archea, Bacteria, and Eukarya have
unique patterns within themselves such as rRNA, RNA polymerase, Cell
Walls, Lipid compositions, and translational machineries. Current models
of forcing these data into monophyletic interpretation are farfetched. It
is hopefully that further analyses of existing sequence data and data to
be collected will shed lights on the "common descent" vs "common design"

Dr. Pattle Pun Professor of Biology
Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL 60187
Phone: (630)752-5303
FAX: (630)752-5996