Evolution’s Prediction of Junk DNA

A theory is only as good as its predictions. If it can’t correctly anticipate new findings, this suggests that there’s something the matter with the theory. All have noted that the great majority of DNA does not code for the production of proteins. Consequently, evolutionists had declared this non-coding DNA as “junk DNA,” claiming that it served no useful purpose. Instead, they claimed that this “junk DNA” was the leftover junk that had once been functional in our former incarnations as simple blobs of cells up until our more ape-like forms. This is the way evolutionist Ken Miller had described the evolutionists’ understanding in 1994:

• The human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments, “orphaned” genes, “junk” DNA, and so many pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design…In fact, the genome resembles nothing so much as a hodgepodge of borrowed, copied, mutated, and discarded sequences and commands that has been cobbled together by millions of years of trial and error against the relentless test of survival. (Salvo, Autumn 2011, 55)

If evolution had been the creative force, Miller’s prediction about the nature of “junk DNA” would have been supported by future findings. However, they haven’t been. Instead, the prediction of ID – that there is a purpose even for what had been regarded as “junk” – has been born out.

Francis Collins, the Director of the Human Genome Project, had also insisted that much of our DNA is “junk” in his The Language of God. However, according to biologist, Jonathan Wells, Collins is now singing a different tune:

• In 2010 he wrote that “discoveries of the past decade, little known to most of the public, have completely overturned much of what used to be taught in high school biology. If you thought the DNA molecule comprised thousands of genes but far more ‘junk DNA,’ think again.”

Is there any “junk DNA?” Wells conceded,

• There may be, but saying that some of our DNA might be junk is a far cry from claiming that most of our DNA is junk – and that this junk provides evidence for Darwinism and against intelligent design. I would add: Calling something in a living cell “junk,” just because no one knows its function, is a science-stopper. Biologists make progress not by closing their eyes to “junk” but by looking for new functions. (56)

A theory is only as good as its fruitfulness – its ability to direct science into fruitful research. So we are left with this question: “Which theory is more fruitful – a theory that claims that biological diversity is a random, messy, non-purposeful hodge-podge, or one that claims that it represents the wisdom of an intelligent Designer waiting for us to discover His incredible secrets?”