UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Meditation 195
Intelligent Design is Neither a Theory Nor Intelligent

To open a discussion on this article, please use the contact page to provide your comments.

Intelligent design can be a seductive idea, particularly for Christians who understand and accept the findings of science with respect to creation and evolution, but at the same time believe that God has a continuing and active role in the development of life.

Yet there is no evidence in support of this hypothesis. Not only is there no evidence, the concept cannot be tested. It cannot be falsified, nor can it be validated. Thus it cannot be called fact, it cannot be called theory; intelligent design is merely a hypothesis, a supposition, a conjecture, and nothing more.

The only argument for intelligent design is the claim that the theory of evolution does not answer all the questions. Issues raised are generally related to supposedly missing links, complex organs such as eyes, complex organisms such as humans, or complex inter-relationships such as between certain insects, plants, and the seasons.

And with a little research, either in the library or on the internet, you can find a thorough debunking of any of the general claims for intelligent design.

But, I will admit, that today, and tomorrow, and for years into the future, believers in intelligent design will be able to raise questions at the fine detail level which have not yet been answered by scientific research. But, these questions only point the way to further research. The fact that they have not been answered yet does not mean that the answer defaults to intelligent design.

Evolution, as a theory, has a wealth of evidence to support it. Intelligent design has zero evidence. So, in choosing between the two alternatives if a choice had to be made of the probable answer to unanswered questions, the default assumption has to be evolution.

Simplistically, what the proponents of intelligent design claim is

"This is so complicated and complex, it could not have come about through natural causes, there must be an intelligent designer."

It's a fancy way of saying "I don't understand, so God must have done it."

But, there's a glaringly obvious defect. If one accepts intelligent design and tries to understand it, then the logical conclusion is:

"This intelligent designer is so complicated and complex, it could not have come about through natural causes, there must be an intelligent designer of the intelligent designer."

And then logically follow on with :

"This intelligent designer of the intelligent designer is so complicated and complex, it could not have come about through natural causes, there must be an intelligent designer of the intelligent designer of the intelligent designer."

And so on ad infinitum. Or generalized:

IDn is so complicated and complex, it could not have come about through natural causes, there must be an ID(n+1).

Intelligent design pursued logically just leads you back to turtles, turtles all the way down.