Not in principle, according to Ann Gauger, of the Biologic Institute. A reader wrote to ask, “I was just wondering why some fellows at Discovery believe in ID but still hold to common descent. Science knows that the genetic code is not universal.”
From her reply:
I first need to make clear that living things can be the product both of intelligent design and of common descent. If the designer chose to guide the process of gradual change from species to species, that would be both common descent and intelligent design. In other words, intelligent design theory does not require that common descent is false. Neither does intelligent design require that common descent is true. All that intelligent design theory says is that the best explanation for what we see in the universe, and most particularly in life, is intelligence — that intelligence had to be involved in producing the living things that we see around us. Neo-Darwinism or any other strictly materialist process cannot create the diversity, intricacy, and splendor that we observe. The mechanism of mutation and natural selection is not sufficient.
That’s the key to intelligent design theory. It’s not about whether or not life evolved from one or even multiple common ancestors. It’s about whether life required intelligent design in its origin or diversification.Ann Gauger, “[article title]” at Evolution News and Science Today
It’s not clear why design must exclude common ancestry. Common ancestry is the stock in trade of the human breeder of animals and plants. It’s all design thereafter.
What design excludes is randomness. With human breeding, any resemblance to randomness is a fault. But readers? Your thoughts?
Follow UD News at Twitter!
See also: When genome mapper Craig Venter made clear he doubted universal common descent…
Common Descent: Ann Gauger replies to Vincent Torley
Evolution vs. common descent, universal common descent