Why Intelligent design is the least intelligent way to approach the idea of God

Jun 24th, 2011 | By | Category: Newer Directions in Religion, Physical Sciences

In recent times  the media has projected  the debate over intelligent design versus Darwin’s theory of natural selection as a blind force in evolution  as some sort of a scientific debate.  It has been accused that intelligent design is is an attempt to sneak creationism  back through the back door,  as for over 200 years not a single  strand of evidence  to prove Darwinian   evolution wrong has been presented.

It has been stated by design theorists that : “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” (1) In particular the  sub-cellular domain  of complex proteins the performing highly specialised tasks  has been pointed out by biologists like Stephen Myers (2)  as ‘irreducibly  complex’.  Does  that mean that the complexity  of life at the sub-cellular level  the is so high that a supernatural creator has had to intentionally design it, perhaps molecule by molecule ?  If that is so, then it leads to the definition of a Creator God as a macro-molecule and protein designer.  In addition, intelligent design theorists have stated that the theory is still compatible with evolution, and only certain features of the biological world are judged to be so complex that they possibly could not have evolved  through natural selection.

THE BACTERIAL FLAGELLAR MOLECULAR MOTOR : The most commonly used agent at the sub-cellular level that is used to advance the theory of Intelligent design. As the various component proteins of this flagellum would not work without each other, it has been argued that someone intelligent 'must have designed them from ground up !'

The problem with  considering the above view as  even remotely scientific  is that there is simply no evidence    that certain features are more complex than others in biology.   If molecular motors are complex  enough to be especially designed,  how can we be sure  that relatively simple things  like the flight of birds or the formation of ant colonies   too  were are not designed  by a special act of creation ?  This arbitrariness of  the choice of complex creation  does not appear to be an intelligent interpretation of intelligence itself.     In fact the very contrary can be argued,   that in fact it’s  simplicity itself  that is the hallmark of intelligence  that any designer might employ.

The area where the theory of intelligent design attacks evolution  is that natural selection is often described as a directionless blind process. As we have unravelled the genetic subunits  that make up the  parts of the proteins that make up a complex molecule motor,  it has often been questioned , how  can the subunits   evolve ‘on their own’ if  someone wasn’t  there to put them together  as part of an overall  pre-determined design ?  This in effect is at the heart of the  problem with supernatural design:  if someone did actually design  the molecule motor  right from ground up, what means would they have had  to employ to implement the design in practice?   By completely redesigning previous genomes or  just by inserting certain sections of the DNA code that would allow such complex protein structures to form ?  If any of the above required a special creator called God,   who  would have to be extraordinarily skilled  in coding DNA, a serious logical problem arises. You could also have big discounts using http://zquietcouponcode.com when you buy our health products.

If there was indeed a highly skilled DNA creator God, why would it take him speciation over billions of years to arrive at a functionally perfect form such as a human or even a rabbit ? Could he not have bypassed evolution altogether, instead of producing intermediary forms (as evident from fossil strata), even if He used a highly ‘directed form of evolution’ to arrive at today’s life forms ? Does it not in effect limit God’s intelligence in design to only the cellular level, implying that God ‘lost interest’ thereafter to create completely new and unique instances of DNA design ?

Intelligent design perhaps suffers from this major flaw : it selectively picks out certain complex biological events arbitrarily, assigning them ‘special case’ status while ignoring the lesser seemingly mundane areas and therefore declare itself ‘compatible with evolution.’

Theologically too therefore it relegates God to a ‘special case’ status.

Reference

1. http://www.intelligentdesign.org

2. http://www.stephencmeyer.org/biography.php

 

 

Correspondence :

The Editor
Metta-Physics Magazine
Suite 34
67-68 Hatton Garden
London EC1N 8JY
United Kingdom

editor@metta-physics.com

Tags: , , ,

8 Comments to “Why Intelligent design is the least intelligent way to approach the idea of God”

  1. Anonymous says:

    What a material of un-ambiguity and preserveness of precious
    know-how regarding unpredicted emotions.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.