[MRMEAN]

Read the article and found it silly. Some bacteria can digest nylon, which is synthetic so there are 3 possible explanations for this and scientists "prefer" the third one (that a nylon eating gene recently evolved) for some very unconvincing reasons.

But for the Creationist, all evidence and reason that would tend to support evolution will be "very unconvincing," right? Why are the non-evolutionary explanations to be considered plausible? If the nylonase gene was in the bacteria all along, why is it not expressed in proteins? And if the DNA coding the nylonase was created by an Intelligent Designer, either at the Time Of Creation or in the very recent past, why is the nylonase enzyme only 2% as efficient as the original

An explanation from natural selection is that the mutated DNA producing nylonase has not had time to undergo the additional mutation and selection pressure to achieve a more affect nylon degrading enzyme.

A good discussion by Dave Thomas at New Mexicans for Science and Reason:

My favorite example of a mutation producing new information involves a Japanese bacterium that suffered a frame shift mutation that just happened to allow it to metabolize nylon waste. The new enzymes are very inefficient (having only 2% of the efficiency of the regular enzymes), but do afford the bacteria a whole new ecological niche. They don't work at all on the bacterium's original food - carbohydrates. And this type of mutation has even happened more than once!

[Williams]

Two points: First, the scientists have not determined the ability to digest nylon is the result of a mutation. They just don't know.

Second, I personally believe in evolution. I think the intelligent design or purpose is inherent in the universe, and there is some deeper reason why life exists and is evolving. That reason is beyond me and science, and begins to look like the design of God. IMHO, God is unknowable by man and there are things unknowable to science. That is where science and religion are destined to find a common path.