Creationism vs Evolution (Part I)

The Creationist Periodic Table of Elements. There's no doubt, creationism, or intelligent design (ID) is reaching new levels of popularity (and hilarity) in today's world. In fact, just last week I recieved an unwanted snail-mailed publication called "Last Generation" which has a substaintial creationist bent.

Even fellow bloggers have went to bat in support for this "alternative theory". Such as Volokh.

In any case, many supporters of "ID" claim that: "it posits something that may or may not be true (organisms "look like they were designed because they were designed," to quote one proponent of the intelligent design school, UC Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson) -- and that is in fact more plausible to many people than evolution is."

Now, however tempted I am to go on a diatribe pointing out this is a law professor, not a professor in the sciences, I won't. I'll just leave it at that.

Should we decide whether to teach things because they're "plausible" to people? Of course not. Most people think it's plausible that "F=mv", (That is, Force=motion * velocity) because they need to exert a constant force to keep a body in motion on a frictional surface. We disabuse them of this notion because we've learned by hard experience that, actually, "F=ma", (That is, Force=motion * acceleration) and that "F=mv" only seems to explain the case of a block on a frictional surface. The difference between "F=ma" and "F=mv" is the difference between a bridge that collapses and a bridge that stands.

Evolution, like physics and all other sciences has mathematics at its core. As we all know mathematics is based on a system of axioms that are (in principle) independent of the outside world, while ID is a statement about the outside world.

ID is analogous to this same misconception that produced "F=mv". Like "F=mv", it is manifestly false because it provides no explanatory value. What does the "theory" of ID predict? NOTHING - it simply provides a post facto rationalization for some of the processes observed in biology. Just like "F=mv" vs. "F=ma", ID chokes on those cases that are explained elegantly by the theory of evolution. ID's "answer" is always the same:

1. Observe overwhelming sequence similarity at the molecular scale? The designer put it there.
2. Observe a convoluted molecular mechanism that seems to waste energy? The designer put it there.
3. Observe the same process implemented in hundreds of different ways? The designer put it there.

Contrast these to the explanations offered by biology:

1. Observe overwhelming sequence similarity at the molecular scale? Molecular Phylogenetics.
2. Observe a convoluted molecular mechanism that seems to waste energy? Explantion of photorespiration.
3. Observe the same process implemented in hundreds of different ways? Convergent Evolution.

Even supporters of ID must admit that the only reason it is clung to like a dog on a milkbone is to keep from sinking into a sense of nihilism when they realize that God may very well not be in control - and indeed regulated to the level of superstition.