UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Meditation 381
Intelligent Design?

by Eduardo Carrión Letort

A discussion on this article has been opened in Debate and Discourse. Please feel free to add your thoughts to the discussion via the contact page.

Intelligent Design (ID) proponents want us to accept the following claims:

1.- ID research is a valid scientific field. It identifies those features of objects that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause.

By saying so, ID proponents are stating that since their theory is testable it can be considered valid science. Now, you can hypothesize all you want and you can build the most imaginative theory, but, at the end, you are required to provide proof for your claims. So far, ID can only “proof” that science does not know everything.

2.- ID is not Creationism.

ID proponents make tremendous efforts to differentiate themselves from creationists. They don’t want to be confused with the world-in-seven-days literalists. They argue that certain finite material objects exhibit patterns that convincingly point to an intelligent cause, but the nature of that cause simply do not fall within intelligent design’s purview.

This argumentation is fallacious. Creationists do not claim to fully understand God either. They merely point to God as the necessary cause of the universe (the creation), whether it happened in seven days or 13.7 billion years. The small minority of fanatics that really take the genesis by the letter don’t deserve any serious attention.

3.- The creation exhibits convincingly patterns of an intelligent design.

Take DNA. ID proponents note that junk DNA may not be “junk” after all, so there may not be any “waste” in the genome. You know, ID hates waste because it shows poor design abilities from the “intelligent cause”.

But nature exhibits an enormous amount of waste. In fact, the whole evolutionary theory is based on the fact that more beings are born in each generation than the available resources will allow to survive.

There are design flaws anywhere we look. Take vestigial organs for instance. In humans there are more that ten remains of past organs that no longer have any function, the list includes body hair, wisdom teeth, and the coccyx, superfluous features that proof humans descend from a long line of fur-insulated, plant-chewing creatures that sported tails.

Millions of spermatozoids are wasted in each fecundation.

The feeble structure of the spinal cord is a strong argument against ID.

Turn on the Animal Planet Channel and you will find that someone is either trying to eat or mate someone else!

What we see in nature is very much in agreement with the evolutionary view of things, ID may be a theory but requires a lot of faith.