Abstract

Intelligent  Design  (ID)  argues  for  the  existence  of  a  designer,  postulating it as a theoretical entity of a scientific theory aiming to explain specific characteristics in nature that seems to show design. It is commonly accepted  within  the  Scientific  Realism  debate,  however,  that  asserting  that  a scientific theory is successful is not enough for accepting the extramental existence of the entities it postulates. Instead, scientific theories must fulfill additional  epistemic  requirements,  one  of  which  is  that  they  must  show  successful  novel  predictions.  Evolutionists  typically  attack  ID  by  offering  cases of bad design, such as the inverted retina of vertebrates. ID defenders defend  their  position  affirming  that  the  inversion  of  the  retina  must  be  a  detail of design for an as of yet unknown function. The recent discovery of such a function is celebrated by ID defenders as a triumph over evolutionists. The inverted retina case is a good candidate for a novel prediction in favor of ID. In this paper, I analyze whether this is the case.