OK. Standard biology, using the phylogenetic tree, makes predictions. For example, if a retrotransposon, pseudogene, etc, is found in a single species of whale and also found, in the same place in the genome, in a single species of cow, then it will also be found (in the same place) in the genomes of all species of whale, all species of cattle, as well as all specie of goats, deer, and sheep and also hippos and giraffes.
If these predictions are not fulfilled, then there is a major problem with our understanding of biology.
But, one of the reasons that the standard theory is standard, is that this, and many, many other predictions of the same general type, are always fulfilled.
Please explain how any variation of ID, or creationism, or anything else, can make equally strong predictions.
If the evidence points to a conclusion, consider it. What is so hard to understand?
Indeed. The evidence of anatomy led Linnaeus and others to classify animals and plants into a tree structure. Now the evidence from molecular biology provides evidence for exactly the same tree structure. Every part of the genome that's been analyzed points to the exact same tree, over and over again.
If there were some exceptions to this, it might be interpreted as the whim of some designer. But there aren't any exceptions. The hypothesis of a designer increases neither the number nor the specificity of the predictions made by the standard theory.
In fact, the lack of exceptions points to the conclusion that either the hypothetical designer is constrained to follow the rules of standard biology, or that there simply isn't one. Occam's razor, anyone?
Darwinites are the ones giving up real science for a belief system that doesn't stand up to the facts.
OK. Let's see some real scientfic predictions made by using ID "theory". ... If a pseudogene is found in chimps and baboons it will be found where else? If a retrotransposon is found in a single species of dog and a single species of cat, it will also be found where?