The theory of intelligent design is, simply put, the idea that this world is too perfectly designed for there to be no designer. The theory comes from what’s called the Watchmaker Analogy, put forth by William Paley in 1802. The idea is that if you walked into the woods and found a pocket watch, you would assume someone designed that pocket watch. Due to the complexity and clear design of the pocket watch, you would not assume it just appeared there by coincidence.
Of course, it’s more complex than that. Before you say, “Well you would assume a designer because you’ve seen a pocket watch before,” well, sure. That’s not the point. The point is that things that appear to have been designed usually have a designer. If it makes you feel better, insert “clearly designed foreign object” instead of pocket watch.
Intelligent design gets a tough rap in the scientific community. In scientific circles, they scoff at this idea. They say, scientifically, who is the designer? The ridicule continues from there.
There is one argument from scientists against the theory of intelligent design that I’d like to discuss here. Scientists who believe in the theory of evolution and oppose intelligent design make this argument:
They say that –
“If there is an intelligent designer, why would that intelligent designer create things that seem to not have a purpose?”
To be funny, and to lighten the mood, we will use the example of male nipples. Why would an intelligent designer give males nipples when they serve no purpose?
Proponents of intelligent design would respond, “Just because we don’t know the purpose, doesn’t mean there is none.”
This results in escalated scoffing from evolutionary scientists. They say, “That is unscientific. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say something has an intelligent designer, then when asked why there would be pointless designs say we don’t know the purpose of those designs. That is unscientific as it is untestable and can’t be proven either way.”
This goes back to what is “scientific” in terms of the scientific method, etc.
The theory of evolution is that all species have evolved through a process called natural selection. There is ample evidence to appear that the theory of evolution is true. See my post What the Theory of Evolution is Missing. Natural selection is basically the idea that the strongest survive, they breed, and so the strongest traits in a species will survive and be passed on.
Of course, it’s not that simple.
So, here’s the thing.
If an evolutionary proponent is asked, “Why did natural selection result in males with nipples? How did nipples help man survive?”
The response would be, “Natural selection doesn’t guarantee everything is related to survival. There is some randomness.”
What is the difference between the intelligent design defense and the evolution defense?
What’s the difference between:
- Intelligent designer
- If we don’t understand the design, doesn’t mean there is no purpose.
And
- Evolution and natural selection
- Not every trait is for the purpose of survival, there is some randomness.
Where is the difference? These are both ‘you can’t have it both ways’ arguments.
Is there something I’m missing here? Is this not, essentially, the same argument? Is this not the same thing?
Ultimately, the root of criticism of the theory of intelligent design comes down to one thing: belief in God. That’s what it’s all about. A lot is thrown around about “unscientific” and blah blah. Please define “scientific.” Cool, thank you. Now I’ll find 10 different definitions of scientific from 10 different scientists.
I’ve elaborated more on the “God issue” in science in this post. Science and religion will always be in an unwarranted battle until the true scientist – the one who set this all up, designed it, created it, organized it, and sent us here – comes down and explains it all to us. I welcome that day.
No Coincidences 