intelligent design vs evolution essay

• PHOTO GALLERY

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: 6 Bones of Contention

On the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, we look back on 6 pieces of evidence that still spark debate today.

On November 24, 2009--the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species --the theory that new species can arise from old ones through natural selection is still met with some resistance.

1. The Eyes Of The Vertebrate Why Intelligent Design?

Some of evolution's most vocal critics are proponents of "intelligent design," arguing that many structures in plants and animals bear the unmistakable signature of design by a supernatural intelligence.

Intelligent design proponents say the eyes of vertebrates--including humans and the common snapping turtle seen above--could not have evolved in a stepwise fashion. That's because the eye is made of several interacting parts, and the removal of any one part will cause the entire system to cease functioning. Thus, the argument goes, the eye must have been produced in one fell swoop. "If you look at these [evolutionary] schemes, they often very abruptly add a lens or a cornea," said Casey Luskin, a spokesperson for the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based organization that advocates intelligent design. But things don't just appear suddenly in evolution, Luskin said. "You need to evolve things in a step-by-step fashion." Evolutionists Argue ... Steps in the evolution of the vertebrate eye exist in the fossil record, said Don Prothero, a paleontologist at California's Occidental College and author of Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. "There've been multiple, very well-documented papers showing how complex structures like the eye can evolve in gradual steps from a simple eye spot that is just barely a light receptor all the way to things like the human eye," Prothero said. Intelligent design advocates, he said, simply ignore the evidence.

You May Also Like

This 'lost world' reveals a new chapter in the evolution of life

Spectacular fossil fish reveal a critical period of evolution

Spinosaurus had penguin-like bones, a sign of hunting underwater

2. the cambrian explosion.

Why Intelligent Design? The Cambrian explosion refers to a period in Earth's history 530 million years ago when new species of unprecedented complexity--like the predatory Anomalocaris depicted above--appeared in the fossil record within a relatively short time span. The lineages of nearly all of today's living organisms can be traced back to this flowering of life. According to the Discovery Institute's Luskin, the Cambrian represents "abrupt explosions of mass biological diversity that required huge amounts of information be injected into the biosphere rapidly. In my view, only an intelligent agent can account for the origin of information in such a rapid fashion. I don't think a step-by-step, neo-Darwinian process is up to the task." Evolutionists Argue ... The Cambrian explosion was not an explosion at all. "It's a three-billion-year-old 'slow fuse,' and we have the fossil record that shows this," Occidental College's Prothero said. In addition, "we now have fossils of all sorts of soft-bodied and microscopic things from before the Cambrian, and you can see very clearly how from simpler things you can get more complex things."

Why Intelligent Design? As a blueprint for nearly all forms of life on Earth, the DNA molecule (seen above in an artist's rendering) could be said to have a high degree of complex specified information, or CSI. Using only four chemical bases as "letters," DNA encodes within its spiral structure the instructions for all the proteins an organism needs to survive. High CSI refers to objects or phenomena that are both complex and highly specific--just like, for example, language and machines, which are products of human intelligence. "Systems that have high CSI only come from an intelligence," Luskin said. Evolutionists Argue ... Once the molecular ingredients for DNA came together, natural selection took over to create increasingly complex--and yes, specific--molecules suitable for use in genetic code. While no supernatural hand guided the evolution of DNA, "natural selection [was] a non-chance component," Prothero said.

4. Bacterial "Legs"

Why Intelligent Design? Some bacteria move around using whiplike structures called flagella, each one made up of dozens of complex, interconnected protein parts. Intelligent design advocates say that, like the vertebrate eye , the bacterial flagellum is "irreducibly complex," because the absence of any one of its many parts causes it to stop functioning. That means gradual evolution would have been unlikely. Evolutionists Argue ... As with the vertebrate eye, scientists have discovered several intermediate steps leading up to the bacterial flagellum, Prothero said. "There are semi-flagella in nature that are not as complicated as the bacterial one. All of this has been documented at great length, and [intelligent design proponents] ignore it over and over again."

Why Intelligent Design? Darwin was ridiculed in his time for suggesting that small land animals could have transformed into modern whales, like the young sperm whale seen above in the waters off the Caribbean island of Dominica. Whales "have a long generation time, and they don't have huge populations. They're like the worst-case scenario for trying to evolve structures rapidly," Luskin said. "To fix all the mutations needed to convert a little land mammal into a fully functional whale [in ten million years]--mathematically that's totally not possible." Evolutionists Argue ... But paleontologists have since shown that Darwin's guess wasn't that far from the truth. In the late 1970s scientists began unearthing fossils of "archaic" whales that were initially mostly terrestrial but that became more aquatic over time. "We have the fossils showing how it happened," Prothero said. "Anyone who makes that argument is flat out lying about the fossil record."

6. Universal Perfection

Why Intelligent Design? From what we know about the way the universe works, humans appear to inhabit a cosmic environment with variables that are remarkably well-suited for life as we know it (above, the famous "pillars of creation" as seen by the Hubble Space Telescope). For example, the value of the gravitational constant--an equation that defines the amount of attraction between objects with mass--is just right for creating planets orbiting sunlike stars with lifetimes long enough for life to evolve. That must mean, intelligent design proponents say, the universe was designed by a supernatural being with life in mind. Evolutionists Argue ... The idea of a single finely-tuned universe shows a limited imagination, Prothero said. "There're lots of ways you can imagine a universe that is not finely tuned for us, but might be tuned for something else." For example, some physicists have theorized that our universe is just one of many possible universes in an unimaginably large "multiverse." It should be no surprise then that, even without a higher plan, humans live in the universe that is hospitable to them.

Related Topics

• PHOTOGRAPHY
• VERTEBRATES

Was Darwin Wrong? No—Evidence for Evolution Is Overwhelming.

What these flashy feathers reveal about the secret lives of birds

As males evolve to have better weapons, females develop bigger brains

Who was the Coast Salish woolly dog? DNA testing provides some clues.

The 11 most astonishing scientific discoveries of 2023

• Environment
• Perpetual Planet

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• History Magazine
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Rambam Maimonides Med J
• v.1(1); 2010 Jul

Intelligent Design versus Evolution

Intelligent Design (ID) burst onto the scene in 1996, with the publication of Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe. Since then, there has been a plethora of articles written about ID, both pro and con. However, most of the articles critical of ID deal with peripheral issues, such as whether ID is just another form of creationism or whether ID qualifies as science or whether ID should be taught in public schools. It is our view that the central issue is whether the basic claim of ID is correct. Our goal is fourfold: (I) to show that most of the proposed refutations of ID are unconvincing and/or incorrect, (II) to describe the single fundamental error of ID, (III) to discuss the historic tradition surrounding the ID controversy, showing that ID is an example of a “god-of-the-gaps” argument, and (IV) to place the ID controversy in the larger context of proposed proofs for the existence of God, with the emphasis on Jewish tradition.

INTRODUCTION

The concept of Intelligent Design (ID) was proposed in 1996 by biochemist Michael Behe in his book, Darwin’s Black Box, the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution . Behe claimed to have discovered an ironclad proof for the existence of a supernatural being, whom he called the “Intelligent Designer.” His studies of the living cell led Behe to conclude that Darwinian evolution cannot explain many biochemical reactions that take place in the cell; only ID can. Although Behe studiously refrained from identifying the Intelligent Designer, the widespread understanding is that the Intelligent Designer is God.

Behe’s proposed proof that the cell could not have formed through Darwinian evolution, generated enormous interest (reported in Newsweek , U.S. News & World Report , New York Times , Commentary , National Review and many other periodicals).

Michael Behe is a creationist’s dream come true. Unlike previous religious “scientists” who attacked evolution, Behe is a Professor of Biochemistry at a respected university, a research scientist who does experiments, is awarded grants and publishes papers in international science journals. Moreover, his book is extremely well written, cleverly argued, and shows his obvious expertise in biochemistry. Indeed, Behe’s book is the most sophisticated attack on evolution to appear in recent years. It has revived the hopes of the creationists – here is a professional biochemist claiming that the Darwinists are all wrong about evolution.

The present article focuses on various aspects of Intelligent Design. What exactly has Behe claimed and why is this claim wrong? What is the history of ID and what can we learn from this history? What did the critics say and what should they have said? What important implications would follow if ID were indeed correct?

IMPORTANT AND UNIMPORTANT ISSUES

Some issues that are irrelevant to Behe’s claim have, unfortunately, occupied the attention of many of those involved in the ID debate. It does not matter whether ID is or is not science; it does not matter whether ID is or is not creationism; it does not matter whether or not ID should be taught in the public schools. The only question that is important is whether or not the claim of ID is correct .

The scientific world was immediately up in arms against Behe’s book. He was ridiculed for claiming 1 that his discovery is “so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science”, rivaling “those of Newton, Einstein, Lavoisier, Schroedinger, and Pasteur.” Many scientists wrote that one should dismiss out of hand the claim of ID because Behe invoked a supernatural being to explain an important part of the physical world.

Much less effort was spent in examining whether Behe’s claim is correct. For example, philosopher of science Michael Ruse 2 recently published an essay discussing ID. His opening sentence is the following: “We need to answer two questions: What is ID, and is it science?” However, I believe that what we really need to answer is whether the claim of ID is correct.

If ID were correct, then Behe would be perfectly justified in asserting that ID is the greatest challenge imaginable, and not just to evolution, but to science itself. ID would show that the central assumption of science for hundreds of years was wrong! Since the time of Newton, the enterprise of science has been based on the assumption that the laws of nature are sufficient to explain all physical phenomena, without the need to invoke supernatural beings. If this assumption were proven to be incorrect, this would indeed be “one of the greatest achievements in the history of science,” rivaling “the achievements of Newton, Einstein,” and the others. Behe did not exaggerate in the slightest regarding the significance of his claim. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to establish whether or not the claim of ID is correct.

NAME-CALLING

One of the most unfortunate features of the widespread criticism of ID is the persistent name-calling to which ID has been subjected. ID has repeatedly been called a creationist idea. The purpose of this terminology is clear. The creationists refuse to accept even well-established science if it contradicts their understanding of the literal meaning of the words of Genesis. Therefore, referring to ID as a creationist doctrine immediately labels ID as standing in opposition to science. By this name-calling device, the critics of ID have already won the battle in the minds of the public without having to deal with the real issue of whether or not the claim of ID is correct.

For example, philosopher and historian of science Robert Pennock edited a volume about ID, entitled “ Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics .” The very title of the book characterizes ID as a type of creationism. The expression “intelligent design creationism” is repeated so often that it merited an acronym (IDC). Pennock 3 describes ID as follows: “The last decade of the millennium saw the arrival of a new player in the creation/evolution debate – the intelligent design movement.”

The essays in Pennock’s book continue this sorry tradition. In her very first paragraph, philosopher Barbara Forrest 4 informs the reader that: “Intelligent design theory is the most recent – and most dangerous – manifestation of creationism.”

One wonders just what could be “dangerous” about the ID claim regarding the origin of the living cell. It is quite ironic that the same charge – dangerous – that is here being hurled against ID, has also been used by creationists against evolution. Creationists point out that the Nazis used the Darwinian concept of “survival of the fittest” to justify their mass murder of millions of “less fit” people, including Jews, gypsies, and Slavs. Therefore, creationists claim, accepting Darwinism is dangerous because it can lead to Nazism. And now we are told that also ID is dangerous !

Probably the most blatant example of name-calling in this volume is the essay by philosopher Philip Kitcher, 5 bearing the sarcastic title “Born-Again Creationism.” This essay is literally riddled with snide, derogatory remarks and with errors in his calculation of probabilities, but that is not my concern here.

Sometimes a different type of name-calling is used. Behe is also accused of invoking the “argument from design,” a thousand-year-old “proof” for the existence of God that was refuted long ago. For example, evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller 6 starts his discussion of Behe’s book as follows: “The heart and soul of Behe’s treatise against evolution is neither new nor novel. It is the ‘argument from design,’ the oldest and best rhetorical weapon against evolution… Behe has dusted off the argument from design, spiffed it up with the terminology of modern biochemistry, and then applied it to the proteins and macromolecular machines that run the living cell.”

What is the “argument from design”? First, note that the “argument from design” has no connection whatsoever with “Intelligent Design,” except for sharing the word “design” in their title. Also, note that the word “argument” does not denote disagreement; it is an old English word for “proof.” The “argument from design” is a proposed proof for the existence of God based on the complexity of the world. The argument claims that complex structures that carry out specialized tasks never form all by themselves; they always have a maker. Consider a watch, wrote British theologian William Paley in 1803. In the same way that a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker, so goes the argument, the extreme complexity of the universe proves the existence of its Maker.

We now know that this “proof” is wrong. In all fields of science, we observe extremely complex structures that carry out specialized tasks (complex molecules, intricate crystals, vertex structure of type II superconductors, fractal symmetry, etc.) that form all by themselves , given the raw materials and suitable temperatures. Therefore, it is sufficient for Miller to assert that Behe bases his claim on the argument from design, and the reader is already convinced that Behe is wrong.

Anyone whose knowledge of Behe’s thesis comes from Miller’s book, would be quite astonished to learn that Behe explicitly rejects the argument from design. Behe emphasizes that it is not complexity that is the basis for his claims about ID. Rather, it is a particular type of complexity which he calls “irreducible complexity.” Behe categorically agrees that extremely complex structures can evolve gradually according to the standard Darwinian mechanism for evolution, but not when irreducible complexity is involved. Moreover, a system can be quite simple in the sense implied by the argument from design, and still be irreducibly complex in the sense that Behe means.

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY

When Behe speaks of irreducible complexity (IC), what does he mean? How does IC differ from the usual forms of complexity? What is the basis for his claim that IC cannot be explained by the standard Darwinian evolutionary theory and that only ID can account for the IC that is found in the living cell?

Darwinian evolution works by the chance appearance of a favorable mutation in the genetic makeup of an animal. The favorable mutation enhances the animal’s chances for survival by making the animal a bit stronger, faster, or less susceptible to disease, etc. Therefore, the animal with the favorable mutation will probably live to reproduce the next generation, and this mutation will become incorporated into the species gene pool. The accumulation of many favorable mutations over many generations brings about large changes in the animal, eventually leading to an entirely new species.

The key point is that according to Darwinism, only those mutations that enhance the animal’s chances for survival become incorporated into the gene pool. It is unlikely that a mutation that provides no survival advantage will be passed on to the next generation.

Behe asserts that the gradual accumulation of favorable mutations cannot explain the development of many vital biochemical mechanisms. Among the various examples cited by Behe is the mechanism for blood clotting. A large number of chemical reactions are involved in blood clotting, and – here is the crucial point – if even one of these reactions does not occur , the blood will not clot. Therefore, claims Behe, the mechanism for blood clotting could not have evolved gradually through a series of mutations, with each mutation providing an additional survival advantage to the animal . Each such mutation would, by itself, be useless. All the mutations have to be present to be of any use to the animal because every one of the reactions involved in blood clotting must occur or the blood will not clot.

The mechanism for blood clotting is called “irreducible” because it cannot be reduced to a series of steps with each step affording an additional survival advantage. Rather, the complete blood-clotting mechanism had to appear in the species gene pool all at once . According to Behe, this implies design – “Intelligent Design.”

It is important to note that even a relatively simple system, consisting of only two parts , can be an irreducibly complex system, if both parts are necessary for the system to function. Behe discusses the mousetrap as a classic example of an IC system. There is clearly nothing very complex about a mousetrap. This example serves to confirm that Behe’s assertion that ID has nothing at all to do with the argument from design .

UNCONVINCING REFUTATIONS OF ID

Some of the proposed refutations of ID are rather unconvincing. Consider the following refutation (which has many adherents, just look in Google), proposed by biologist Robert Dorit 7 :

“Many of the proteins of the eye lens, for example, began their careers doing something completely different and unrelated to vision. Evolution is a creative scavenger, taking what is available and putting it to new use. The correct metaphor for the Darwinian process is not that of a First World engineer, but that of a Third World auto mechanic who will get your car running again, but only if the parts already lying around can be used for the repair ” (emphasis added).

There is a very important implication in the italicized words. What if the necessary parts were not already lying around? Dorit’s argument implies that it would then be impossible to produce the corresponding IC system by Darwinian evolution. This would be an enormous limitation to the evolutionary process.

Evolutionary biologist H. Allen Orr 8 dismisses the above proposed refutation of ID: “We might think that some of the parts of an irreducibly complex system evolved step by step for some other purpose and were then recruited wholesale to a new function [which is precisely what Dorit proposed]. But this is unlikely. You may as well hope that half your car’s transmission will suddenly help out in the airbag department. Such things might happen very, very rarely, but they surely do not offer a general solution to irreducible complexity.”

ORR’S REFUTATION OF ID

Orr then shows how an IC system can indeed evolve through a gradual Darwinian process, without having to assume that the “necessary parts were already lying about,” ready to be scavenged to fabricate the IC system. That is, an IC system can be built up gradually by adding parts in a way that each part offers an additional advantage, even though the final system is IC.

Consider an IC system consisting of several parts, and assume that each part is produced through a genetic mutation. Although this is a simplification of how genes work, this description is quite sufficient for our purposes.

In the distant past, the system may have consisted of only one part, say part A. The system worked, although not too well. A genetic mutation then produced part B, which led to a somewhat improved system, consisting of A plus B. This improved system is not IC, because it will function even without part B. A second genetic mutation then transformed A into A*, which led to a further small improvement of the system. However – and this is the crucial point – A* will not work unless B is present. Therefore, the present system, consisting of A* plus B, is IC because both A* and B are necessary for the system to function .

We have thus shown how an IC system can be produced by means of gradual evolution, with each mutation leading to a small improvement in the system, although the final system (A* plus B) will not function at all unless both its parts are present. Therefore, we are done. The claim of ID – that this is impossible – has been refuted.

Let’s continue. A third genetic mutation produces part C, which leads to a further small improvement. This system is not IC, because it will function even without part C. A fourth mutation then transforms B into B*, yielding yet another small improvement. However, B* will not work unless C is present. Therefore, the improved system (consisting of A* plus B* plus C) is IC because all three parts are necessary for the system to function . Nevertheless, this IC system was produced by a series of gradual improvements , in the best tradition of Darwinian evolution.

This process can be continued to gradually produce a ten-part IC system, consisting of A* plus B* plus C* plus D* plus E* plus F* plus G* plus H* plus I* plus J*. And there was no need “to use parts that are already lying around.”

A very important feature of this procedure concerns its irreversibility . After the system has been formed, all we see is the final product. We have no way of knowing in what order the ten parts were formed, or what were the intermediate parts (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J). Once the scaffolding has been removed, there is no way to determine how the IC building was constructed. But, in contradiction to the claim of ID, its construction was certainly possible!

TEACHING ID IN THE PUBLIC-SCHOOL SCIENCE CLASSROOM

A much debated question relates to teaching ID in the science classroom. Shouldn’t one teach ID in the public schools because, as former President George W. Bush 9 enticingly suggested, “an essential part of education is to expose the student to different schools of thought.” Aren’t creationists right when they say that a central feature of a liberal education is to acquaint the student with various points of view?

The flaw in this suggestion is the following. In other disciplines (philosophy, theology, political science, economics, etc.), there exists more than one legitimate school of thought. In science, however, there is only one correct explanation for each physical phenomenon.

Phlogiston theory is not a “different point of view” to explain the rusting of metals, to which “the student should be exposed to give him a liberal education.” Phlogiston theory is wrong ! Chemical oxidation is the only correct explanation for rusting. Similarly, caloric theory is wrong ! And the ether theory is wrong ! Therefore, these incorrect theories are never taught in the science classroom, except perhaps to explain to the student why these theories are wrong.

It should be noted that Newton’s mechanics is not wrong . Rather, Newtonian mechanics is a highly accurate approximation to Einstein’s theory of relativity and to quantum theory (except for extremely high speeds or extremely tiny particles). In fact, Newton’s theory is so accurate over such a wide range of circumstances that every student of physics is required to learn Newtonian mechanics. In complete contrast to this situation, caloric theory, phlogiston theory, and ether theory are not approximations to some correct theory. They are simply wrong .

HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS FOR ID

Intelligent Design is not a new concept. Ancient peoples observed phenomena that seemed completely inexplicable to them, and they postulated supernatural beings (analogous to today’s Intelligent Designer) to explain these phenomena. Raging seas, towering waves, daily tides, terrifying hurricanes – all these seemed to have no possible explanation other than the activities of the “god of the seas.” The dazzling sun, whose brilliance provides the light, heat and energy that makes life on earth possible, seemed to have no explanation other than the “sun god.” The list goes on and on, accounting for the vast pantheon of gods that characterized the ancient world.

The ancients asked sophisticated questions about the world in which they lived. If their questions seem primitive today, it is only in the hindsight of modern science. Consider the following example. I am holding a pen. If I let go, the pen will fall to the floor. Already at age four, my grandson knows that if he lets go of his ball, it will fall. Everyone knows that an object falls unless held up by some entity. That’s just common sense.

The ancients asked: Why does the earth itself not fall? They answered that the reason must be because the earth is being held up by some divine entity, a god whom the Greeks named Atlas. Moreover, they understood that one cannot ask: Why does Atlas not fall? As a god, Atlas was not bound by the laws of falling; he may remain suspended at will.

THE SITUATION TODAY

Michael Behe is carrying on this tradition. He could not imagine any possible physical explanation for the IC of the living cell. Therefore, he postulated a supernatural being. Had Behe lived in the ancient world, he might have referred to this supernatural being as the “god of the cell.” However, in the twentieth century, such terminology is unbecoming. Intelligent Designer sounds much better.

One would think that something would have been learned from past experience. It has been shown time and again that physical phenomena that are not understood at the moment do become understood subsequently within the laws of nature . Science has an excellent track record and is not to be abandoned lightly. If scientists do not understand some particular phenomenon, they think harder. They don’t throw up their hands and give up the search.

In complete contrast to this traditional approach of science, the proponents of ID have abandoned the search for a scientific explanation for IC (that is, within the laws of nature) and have proposed a supernatural explanation instead (that is, ID).

PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

Seeking proofs for the existence of God sounds quaint to the modern ear, but it was a matter of great importance to medieval philosophers, both Jewish (e.g., Maimonides) and Christian (e.g., Thomas Aquinas). Why was it so important to these outstanding thinkers to be able to prove that God exists?

To answer this question, one must return to the period that preceded modern science. In the ancient world, discovering the laws of nature by experimentation was a foreign idea. The mathematicians had discovered the laws of geometry by pure reason, and it was viewed as self-evident that this was the appropriate method for studying the physical universe as well. Indeed, performing careful experiments and carrying out detailed observations seemed unbecoming to the philosopher. His realm of activity was the mind; only a servant or an artisan would “get his hands dirty” with the many menial tasks required to carry out an experiment. An exception was astronomy, where the ancients excelled at observing the motion of the heavenly bodies, the great handiwork of the Creator. Since the heavenly bodies were exalted, observing their motion could not be degrading. However, examining earthly objects was deemed inappropriate for the philosopher – the thinker. Thus, we find in philosophical texts that in contrast to a man, a woman has only twenty teeth (the correct number for both sexes is thirty-two). It did not occur to the scholastic philosopher to count a woman’s teeth. Such a prosaic act was completely unnecessary. Everything could be determined by reason, logic and thought.

The above approach was not limited to the study of the universe. It was believed that all fundamental questions could be answered by logical deduction and pure reason. Since medieval theologians believed that God exists, they naturally assumed that His existence must be susceptible to rigorous proof. Indeed, in their eyes, the inability to prove that God exists might even cast doubt on His existence.

Because of their reverent attitude towards the power of logic, many Jewish philosophers devoted considerable effort to arguments intended to prove that God exists. Although this subject is nowhere discussed in the Bible or in the Talmud, proofs for the existence of God are a major topic in the writings of prominent medieval Jewish philosophers. It is instructive to analyze these arguments and their shortcomings. Consider the most famous proof of all – the “prime mover argument.”

We all experience in our daily lives the truism asserted by Aristotle: “There is no motion without a mover.” When I rearrange the living-room furniture under the watchful eye of my wife, I am painfully aware of the fact that the couch will not budge even one centimeter unless I push it, and the instant that I stop pushing, the couch ceases its motion. If I throw a ball, its motion persists momentarily even after it leaves my hand because I have imparted some “impetus” to the ball. According to the widely accepted “impetus theory,” the ball will continue to move until it uses up all its acquired impetus. Then, the ball will come to rest because “there is no motion without a mover.”

Let us now turn our attention to the heavenly bodies, whose ceaseless motion can be observed day after day, year after year, century after century. What causes the ceaseless motion of the heavenly bodies? It must surely be a supernatural entity (God to the medieval theologian; Intelligent Designer in today’s terminology).

The bubble burst in the seventeenth century, when Isaac Newton formulated his famous three laws of motion in the Principia , the most important book of science ever written. Newton’s law of inertia states, in contrast to Aristotle, that a moving body will continue to move forever unless some force causes it to stop. In the above examples, the force that causes the furniture or the ball to stop moving is friction. However, if friction were not present, then the motion would persist forever. In the heavens, there is no friction. Therefore, according to the law of inertia, heavenly bodies will move forever without any agency being required to keep them moving .

To complete the picture, Newton’s law of inertia predicts straight-line motion, whereas the orbit of the planets is an ellipse. This is due to the gravitational attraction between the sun and the planets, which yields the observed elliptical orbits. Planetary motion is completely described by the laws of nature, without the need to invoke a supernatural entity . The “prime mover proof” for the existence of God is thus refuted.

GOD OF THE GAPS

The “prime mover proof” for the existence of God was based on a lack of knowledge of physics. This is an example of what is called the “God of the gaps.” When some phenomenon seems completely inexplicable, one says, “Aha! It must be God Who is causing this phenomenon.” The problem with this approach is that the “completely inexplicable” phenomenon (“gap” in our knowledge) invariably becomes explained as science progresses. As each “gap” in scientific knowledge closes, God is forced to retreat to the next “completely inexplicable” phenomenon. “God of the gaps” arguments thus place God in continual retreat before the relentless advance of science. Surely, this is not the path of a believing person in the search for the Almighty.

This important point is worth emphasizing. Even if one could find no fault in Behe’s claim that IC is completely incompatible with Darwinian evolution, the response of the scientist should be: “Good question! I’ll think about it.” The response should not be that of Behe, namely, since I cannot think of a scientific explanation, it follows that IC must have been caused by an Intelligent Designer.

THE JEWISH APPROACH

What is the attitude of leading Jewish scholars today toward possible proofs for the existence of God? Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik 10 writes that such proofs have never been of any importance to him. As a man of faith, he neither sought nor was he impressed by proofs. Rather, the primary element of faith is to be found within the human spirit. The exhortation “seek and you shall find” is directed inward , to the depths of the soul, rather than outward , to the logical “proofs” of the philosophers. To Rabbi Soloveitchik, it is the Kierkegaardian “leap of faith” that brings man into communion with the Almighty.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

The twelfth-century Jewish theologian and philosopher Moses Maimonides, 11 after whom this journal is named, wrote that although the believing Jew accepts that Genesis is the word of God, it does not follow that he/she must understand every word in Genesis literally , because “ the paths of interpretation are not closed to us .” Maimonides asserted that whenever the literal meaning of the words of Genesis contradicts well-established scientific knowledge, one should set aside the literal meaning and interpret the Genesis words figuratively.

Therefore, according to Maimonides, the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution does not present any problem at all to the religious person who believes that the Book of Genesis is the word of God. My own essay 12 on this subject, entitled “Evolution – Is There a Problem Here?”, ends with this sentence: “It follows that the religious person has no cause to oppose the scientific findings about evolution.”

The reason for the universal opposition to Intelligent Design among scientists is that they view ID as a rejection of science and a return to the ancient world of spirits, deities, and other supernatural beings that were previously proposed to explain many physical phenomena. Scientists look to the laws of nature, and not to supernatural entities, for the explanation of the physical phenomena that they observe.

Jewish tradition confirms the assumption of science that there is regularity to nature and the physical universe operates according to fixed laws ( olam ke’minhago noheg ). 13 Indeed, Jews are forbidden to depend on a miracle for supplying one’s needs or for solving one’s problems ( ain somchin al ha’nes ). 14 Praying to God for the occurrence of a supernatural event is denounced in the Talmud as “useless prayer” ( tefilath shav ) and strictly forbidden. 15

The above paragraph should not be interpreted as implying that God does not interact with the physical world. This is certainly not the case, as Maimonides has stressed. Otherwise, our prayers to God would have no meaning. Thus, the key question is not whether , but how God influences events.

The Talmud relates to this question by saying that divine providence is bestowed in a manner that is “hidden from the eye” ( samooe min ha’ayin ). 16 In other words, the framework in which God interacts with the physical world is within the laws of nature. Divine intervention rarely involves overtly supernatural events.

Does science assume that miracles do not occur? This would be a serious problem for the religious Jew, because Maimonides 17 wrote that one who does not believe in the occurrence of miracles is a heretic. How does a religious scientist accommodate science’s assumed regularity of the universe with Maimonides’s dictum about the existence of miracles?

Science does not assume that miracles do not occur. Rather, science assumes that the universe usually operates through the laws of nature, and one is to ignore entirely the miraculous in seeking explanations for physical phenomena. Thus, my atheist colleague will claim (and that is all that it is – a claim) that miracles never occur, whereas I will claim (based on my religious beliefs) that miracles do occur, at the will of the Almighty, but their occurrence is so rare that miracles do not intrude into my scientific research. The religious scientist never invokes the supernatural as the explanation of any physical phenomenon. He/she recognizes that accepting the existence of miracles is based on religious belief.

Where did the laws of nature come from? Science is silent on this question and assumes the existence of laws of nature. The entire enterprise of science is concerned with discovering the laws of nature and with explaining all physical phenomena in terms of these laws.

In fact, there is no a priori reason why there should be regularity to nature. Albert Einstein found the existence of laws of nature to be quite surprising, writing: “The most incomprehensible feature of the universe is that it is comprehensible.” 18

However, the believing person finds deep meaning in the existence of laws of nature and attributes them to God. A well-known religious scientist has written: “The existence of an orderly world, having definite laws of nature, is an expression of the faithfulness of God.” 19 This statement echoes the words of Genesis 8:22.

Where did the universe come from? Science now has something to say on this question. The universally accepted “big bang” theory of cosmology asserts that the universe had a beginning, which cosmologists commonly refer to as the “creation.” 20 For example, Nobel laureate Paul Dirac writes: “It seems certain that there was a definite time of creation”. 21

Science is silent regarding what caused the creation. “The creation lies outside the scope of the known laws of physics.” 22 However, the believing person will see in Dirac’s scientific statement a striking confirmation of the opening verse of Genesis: “ In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth .” This opinion of the believer is not related to science, but rather, to faith.

Evolution and cosmology have become established branches of hard science. Judaism has always shown great devotion to science and the pursuit of knowledge. Therefore, Intelligent Design, which denies evolution, has no place in the weltanschauung of the religious Jew.

Many topics have been covered in this article. It is time to summarize.

• The proposal of ID has nothing to do with creationism. Neither Behe nor any other proponent of ID ever invoked the words of Genesis as a justification for ID.
• The proposal of ID has no connection whatsoever with the “argument for design,” except for sharing a common word – design – in its name. The “argument from design” deals with complex systems, which need not be IC , whereas ID deals with IC systems, which need not be complex (such as the Behe’s simple mouse-trap).
• The proposal of ID is a “God-of-the-gaps” argument, because Behe invoked the supernatural Intelligent Designer as a result of his inability (gap in his knowledge) to think of a Darwinian explanation for the evolution of an IC system.
• The religious person who believes that the Book of Genesis is the word of God need not hesitate to accept the scientific findings that demonstrate the evolution of the animal kingdom.
• The most common proposed refutation of ID, namely, that IC systems are formed by scavenging already existing parts, does not explain most examples of IC (“might happen very, very rarely”).
• The refutation of ID proposed by H. Allen Orr covers all cases of IC, and should therefore be viewed as the definitive refutation. Orr has shown that an IC system can be formed through gradual evolution, with each step offering an additional survival advantage, even though the final system will not function at all unless every part is present.

Abbreviations:

Conflict of interest: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Creationism vs. Evolution

Creationism or Intelligent Design is the belief that life and the universe were created by a supernatural being (an "intelligent designer"), an omnipotent, benevolent God. Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the Earth. The theory of evolution purports that life on earth evolved from one universal common ancestor about 3.8 billion years ago. It is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the word , which means it is supported by evidence and accepted as fact by the scientific community. The intelligent design hypothesis is not supported by evidence. Since 1929, the term “creationism” in the US has been associated with Christian fundamentalism, and specifically with a disbelief in evolution and a belief in a young earth .

Comparison chart

The points of view.

Evolutionary theory holds that living organisms that do not adapt to their environment fail to survive. Genetic variations are introduced in species through random DNA mutation. These mutations manifest themselves in different phenotypes , or physical characteristics, in living organisms. Organisms whose characteristics are better suited for the surrounding environment survive and reproduce, passing on their mutated DNA to subsequent generations. This is often called "survival of the fittest", and it is not a random process. As the surviving organisms reproduce, and this process repeats over several generations, the species evolves.

There are many flavors of the creationist worldview. Young Earth Creationism and Gap Creationism believe that humanity was created by God, but while Young Earth Creationism claims the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and was reshaped by the flood, Gap Creationism claims the world is the scientifically accepted age. Progressive creationism believes humanity was directly created by God, based on primate anatomy , while intelligent design and theistic evolution include a variety of beliefs based on the idea that divine intervention led to something that may appear like evolution.

Types of evolution

Divergent evolution occurs when one species separates into two species, for example if they become separated geographically and have to adapt to different environments to survive. Parallel evolution, on the other hand, occurs when two or more species develop similar traits, such as growing wings, to survive the same environment. Finally, convergent evolution occurs when two or more species develop similar traits in different environments.

The Evidence

Evolution relies on evidence from fossil records, similarities between life forms, the geographic distribution of species, and recorded changes in species. Since the 1920s, for example, hundreds of fossils have been found of creatures in the intermediate stages between monkeys, apes, and humans , and fossil records in general suggest that multi-celled organisms only appeared after single-celled ones, and that complex animals were preceded by simpler ones. Geographic evidence includes the fact that, before humans arrived in Australia 60-40,000 years ago, the country had more than 100 species of kangaroo , koalas and marsupials, but no placental land mammals like dogs, cats , bears and horses. Islands like Hawaii and New Zealand also lacked these mammals, and had plant, insect and bird species not found elsewhere on Earth.

Creationism is typically based on a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis in the Bible . Supporters of Intelligent Design argue that either God created the conditions for evolution or point to patterns occuring in nature as evidence that the universe is not random but created by an intelligent being.

Here is a video of a debate between evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and cardinal George Pell , a Catholic priest. They discuss evolution, creation, Adam and Eve and the first humans, as well as the existence of God. A question specifically about evolution is at around 28:40.

A basic tenet of science is the scientific method , which states that

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

This mans that scientific hypotheses must be testable. Critics of intelligent design argue that the creationist hypothesis is not testable i.e., the existence of God cannot be proved . Although science cannot test issues of faith, scientific studies have disproved many elements of Creationism, including the age of the Earth , its geological history , and the relationships of living organisms. Anthropology , geology and planetary science reveal that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, disputing Creationist claims that the Earth was created 6000 years ago. Creationism has also been criticized by several religious organizations , as they maintain that the Christian faith does not conflict with the science of evolution.

Many Creationists argue that evolution is a “theory” and not fact and so should be taught as such. However, this is based on a misunderstanding of the scientific use of “theory,” which does not mean “possibility,” as it does in common usage, but “a scientifically acceptable general principle to explain phenomena.” Creationists also claim that supernatural explanations should not be excluded, and accuse of evolution of also being a religion , not a science. Creationism also criticizes the idea of “common descent” – the theory that creatures with similarities in their genes must have evolved from a common ancestor -- by arguing that such similarities suggest that the creatures shared a common designer, aka God .

Contemporary beliefs

According to a Gallup poll, 46% of US citizens believed in creationism in 2012, including 52% of those with only a high-school education or less and 25% of those with post graduate education. 25% of those who do not attend church believe in creationism, while 67% of those who attend church weekly believe. Outside of the US, most contemporary Christian leaders believe that Genesis is allegorical and support evolution.

Notable supporters of Evolution

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is a notable and vociferous critic of creationism.

The Catholic church 's unofficial position is an example of theistic evolution, also known as evolutionary creation, stating that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict. Moreover, the Church teaches that the process of evolution is a planned and purpose-driven natural process, guided by God. Catholics regard the creation descriptions in the Bible as parables written to provide moral instruction rather than as literal history, and therefore see no conflict between these accounts and the Theory of Evolution. The Church has deferred to scientists on matters such as the age of the earth and the authenticity of the fossil record. Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, have accepted the findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. The Church's stance is that any such gradual appearance must have been guided in some way by God, but the Church has thus far declined to define in what way that may be. [1]

Notable supporters of Creationism

Many Protestant, and particularly Evangelical, churches, on the other hand, reject Evolution in favor of a literal, rather than figurative, interpretation of the book of Genesis. However, it is typically not specified which version of the creation account is being considered divinely inspired and hence "literally true". This is problematic since there are two such accounts in the Bible (Gen1:1 - Gen2:3 vs. Gen2:4 - Gen50:26) , and they contradict each other in numerous ways. For instance, order in which Adam vs. the Beasts were created differs [2] [3] between the two accounts.

• The Evidence of Evolution
• Wikipedia:Creationism
• Wikipedia:Evolution
• Wikipedia:Creation-evolution controversy

Related Comparisons

Share this comparison via:

If you read this far, you should follow us:

"Creationism vs Evolution." Diffen.com. Diffen LLC, n.d. Web. 14 May 2024. < >

Comments: Creationism vs Evolution

Anonymous comments (4).

April 12, 2013, 7:40pm Intelligent Design is not testable. Any conceivable evidence that could be gathered for a theory other than Intelligent Design could be claimed to be evidence for Intelligent Design as well, by just claiming that "for reasons unknown to us, the designer chose to design it that way". Likewise, any evidence against Intelligent Design could likewise be dismissed with a similar claim. There is no experiment that could be created, even in principle, that could prove definitively that Intelligent Design is false, since an intelligent designer might have anticipated the experiment and manipulated the results to pass the test. Therefore, Intelligent Design fails the "falsifiability" criteria which are required for a scientific hypothesis or theory. Furthermore, proponents of Intelligent Design have tended to focus their arguments on attacking Evolutionary Theory rather than on demonstrating via experiment the truth of their own claims, essentially relying on the "false dualism" argument that if Evolution were false (which has not been demonstrated), then Intelligent Design must therefore be true, and ignoring the possibility that other theories could exist as well. — 67.✗.✗.30

November 28, 2013, 6:56pm When you actually take the time to study the 2 it becomes obvious to any rational thinking person comes to the clear conclusion that Evolution by Natural Selection is a factual factor of life here on Earth regardless of the existence or non-existence of any supernatural being. But still I feel like this comparison has been slightly unfair in that it doesn't take into account that there is a difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design. Personally I find both of them a bit fictitious since they both operate under the assumption that a designer is required for any piece of the puzzle but at least ID takes reality into consideration even if those who employ it clearly don't have a full understanding of just how much mankind knows about these things in the modern day. Everything in the known universe thus far has been quantifiable and reducible, even the eye which creationists have constantly claimed cannot possibly be. Anyone who's spent a considerable amount of time watching both sides will also notice that much of the time those on the religious side of things tend to argue about things like the Big Bang when at some point in the conversation it becomes clear they don't even know what the Big Bang actually was. In the end it comes down to faith vs fact. There's enough faith to go around today and facts can't be refuted by anything other than contrary facts, which faith cannot provide if it refuses to enter the realm of tangible reality. If any actual evidence was found proving any deity's existence then science will be the first to jump on the band-wagon because science is the search for truth. We're still waiting. — 68.✗.✗.119

March 20, 2013, 6:37pm "Intelligent" design is not testable. That's because it is a fantasy. Fact. — 62.✗.✗.133

March 17, 2013, 5:30pm Who wrote this nonsense? Intelligent design is very different from creationism, with the only similarity being that they both posit at least some involvement of a creator (thought ID makes no assumptions about its identity or characteristics other than intelligence) in life and/or the universe. That's where the similarity starts and ends. Beyond that, intelligent design is an evidence-based, testable scientific theory. Anything but a "biblical version of truth". I suggest some honest reading up on ID, and keeping this article to actual Creationism. Additionally, the author's understanding of testability and how both evolution and ID hold up to the notion seems shaky at best. Suggested homework in this regard: http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm — 198.✗.✗.50

• Agnostic vs Atheist
• Theory vs Hypothesis
• Ape vs Monkey
• Nature vs Nurture
• Heaven vs Hell
• Anthropology vs Sociology
• Behaviourism vs Constructivism

Edit or create new comparisons in your area of expertise.

Stay connected

© All rights reserved.

• Intelligent Design vs Evolution

Intelligent Design vs. Evolution – The High Stakes Game Intelligent Design vs. Evolution is a new, high stakes game. Intelligent Design is the theistic answer to mainstream science, while Darwinian evolution is the creation story of atheism. Intelligent Design allows for meaning and purpose, while evolution is the tale of nothing becoming everything through an incremental, unguided process of random change and adaptation. Yet despite evolution’s many logical and technical difficulties—not the least of which is explaining how nothing became a “something” to get the whole process started—the narrative has captured the imaginations of a wide spectrum of individuals, religious and non-religious alike. Today nearly any article or television program, covering any aspect of the natural world, from the eating habits of chimpanzees to the dreams of humans, is sure to make mention of “our evolutionary heritage.” What’s more, phenomena as counterproductive to Darwinian fitness as homosexuality and altruism are increasingly being traced to some evolutionary advantage. It is as if to be taken seriously as a researcher, writer or thinker, one must pay homage to Darwin, no matter how tenuous the connection to the subject matter, or fatuous. The charm of the tale comes not only in what it has to say about history, but in what it has to say about the future—the eternal struggle for survival will lead to change; change will lead to progress, and progress to perfection. As the story gained currency, faith in a caring Superintendent began to be displaced by hope in an indifferent, impersonal mechanism of change—“Change we can believe in,” change we must believe in, if we reject the antediluvian myth and its Author. It is no wonder that few phrases in recent memory have provoked as much comment, criticism and derision as “intelligent design.”

Intelligent Design vs. Evolution – The Fear At the core of the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate is fear. Since its introduction into modern lexicons, intelligent design (ID) has been called everything from “creationism in a cheap tuxedo” to a “Trojan horse” to a “sham.” And those are some of the kinder put-downs. And ID opprobrium has not been restricted to the fever swamps of atheism. Educators, judges, politicians, scientists, journalists, and even Christians have logged withering comments about the science of design. But why the invectives over a non-sectarian enterprise that makes no claims about the identity of the Designer? Although the proposition of intelligent design is modest—that certain features of the universe are best explained as the products of intelligence—there is fear that ID and science are mortally locked into a zero-sum game: For ID to win, science must fail. The fear is not unfounded. Science, properly understood, is a systematic method of empirical investigation, philosophically open, for the acquisition of knowledge. It is the science, modern science, mid-wifed by individuals—Bacon, Ockham, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton—whose openness to an external Source of order, beauty and harmony made possible the game-changing discoveries that led to the scientific revolution. Science, as it has become today, is an investigative enterprise ideologically confined to naturalism, which holds that the material world is a brute fact fully explicable in terms of matter and motion, without appeal to external causes. For that science, ID is bad news.

Intelligent Design vs. Evolution – The Core of the Matter Intelligent Design vs. Evolution comes down to this… For those who have built careers, labs, and reputations on the shoulders of Darwin; for those whose investigative quest is driven by an ideological commitment; for those who want to make peace with “science” and appear reasonable to their peers; for those who are more concerned about protecting orthodoxy than in the pursuit of truth; for those whose hopes for the planet lie in evolution’s inexorable march of progress; for those who would litter the road to Utopia with carcasses of the unwanted, the disabled, the aged, and infirmed; and for those who seek escape from the deeper implications of human existence—intelligent design is bad news. It is very bad news.

Compliments of Regis Nicoll. This article first appeared on BreakPoint at www.breakpoint.org . Regis Nicoll is a Centurion of Prison Fellowship’s Wilberforce Forum. He is a columnist for Breakpoint, Salvo Magazine, and Crosswalk and writes for Prison Fellowship’s blog, The Point. He also publishes a free weekly commentary addressing the pressing issues of the day.

• Intelligent Design vs. Evolution – Bad News for the Culture of Death
• Intelligent Design vs. Evolution – Bad News for Social Engineers
• Intelligent Design vs. Evolution – Bad News for Science
• Is there Order in the Universe
• How Does DNA Work
• Intelligent Design Video
• Intelligent Design Theory
• Science and Intelligent Design
• DNA Complexity
• Intelligent Design
• Complexity of a Cell

Page Translations Spanish (Español)   Help get this translated

   , terms of use privacy statement of faith about us contact us support us donate sitemap.

Copyright © 2002-2021 AllAboutScience.org , All Rights Reserved

• Does God Exist Scientifically?
• Or Philosophically?
• Is the Bible True?
• Who is God?
• Is Jesus God?
• What Do You Believe?
• Popular Issues
• Life Challenges
• Skeptics FAQ
• Statement of Faith
• Copyright Policy
• Annual Report
• Citation/Permission

Advertisement

Roger S. Taylor and Michel Ferrari (eds): Epistemology and Science Education: Understanding the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Controversy

Routledge, New York, 2011, ISBN: 978-0-415-96380-0 (paperback), 978-0-415-96379-4 (hardback), 302 pp, price: $51.95 (paperback), $140.00 (hardback)

• Book Review
• Published: 05 May 2011
• Volume 21 , pages 579–582, ( 2012 )

Cite this article

• Ingo Brigandt 1  

440 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Philosophy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

Ingo Brigandt

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ingo Brigandt .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Brigandt, I. Roger S. Taylor and Michel Ferrari (eds): Epistemology and Science Education: Understanding the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Controversy . Sci & Educ 21 , 579–582 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9362-3

Download citation

Published : 05 May 2011

Issue Date : April 2012

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9362-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Intelligent Design and Evolution Theories

Introduction, theories comparison, works cited.

The determination of the origin of humans on the Earth, as well as other beings, has been the core debate among anthropologists, biologists, and church representatives for decades. The introduction of Darwin’s theory heightened the debates as his Evolution theory became opposed to the beliefs and teachings of the church. The current assessment is going to cast light on the issue of the appropriateness to study the theories of Intelligent Design and Evolution.

In the process of careful studying of two scientific articles devoted to the problems of the determination of the life origin on the Earth I paid attention to the fact that the issue is not only about the scientific explanation of this problem but also about the appropriateness of studying each theory in school. In particular, Pat Shipman, the author of Being Stalked by Intelligent Design, mentioned in his work that “the Intelligent Design movement is a deliberate campaign to undermine the teaching of science in America and the evidence of this intent is brazenly posted on ID Web sites”. (Shipman, p. 501) In contrast to this article, the work of Fred Heeren The Lynching of Bill Dembski highlights the arguments in favor of Intelligent Design, or explicitly saying, in support of studying different theories. “ID keeps an open mind and is entirely agnostic on the subject of religion”. (Heeren, p. 50).

In my view, two theories have a right to exist and I agree with the statement that the truth can be achieved only through debates. However, ID theory is inappropriate for studying in school. Let me explain why. I am an adherent of the Evolution theory because it has a scientific background and the evidence of the human origin on the Earth from the species support this theory.

The Evolution theory has its advantages and disadvantages. Probably in the future, it will be disproved. However, currently, it represents more reliable knowledge than ID. To my mind, ID remains only a religious belief. There are no explicit arguments in favor of this theory. That is why I think it is inappropriate to teach this theory in school. School is an educational establishment. Its primary function is to give students knowledge that is considered reliable and proven. If ID theory is studied at school, then a school will not fulfill its main functions. It should be emphasized that ID has no scientific background. Even the work of Bill Dembski, in which he explains his arguments in favor of ID, does not provide sufficient evidence to make the theory scientifically well-reasoned.

The knowledge and hypothesis are different terms. Nowadays, ID is closer to the hypothesis from a scientific point of view. If it is proven, it can be taught in school. “By blocking ID research, methodological naturalism becomes not only a method of doing science but a method for keeping a deepest human concerns a safe distance from our personal lives.” (Heeren, p. 50).

Yet ID remains just a vision of the church on the issue of human origin. It does not mean that the church is mistaken. If enough arguments in support of ID are found, it can be referred to as scientific knowledge. The restrictions on the acknowledgment of any theory as true should be maintained because such restrictions stimulate progress. Prove your point of view and it will be considered true. It is a main postulate of science.

I agree with the words “If ID is accepted as a credible science then the most basic definition of a scientific theory and the fundamental principles of the scientific method are not being taught.” (Shipman, p. 502). The discussion is the right way to make the right conclusion. That is why it would be better to motivate people to express their opinions concerning two theories but accepting one of those opinions as a credible one should be based on well-reasoned arguments.

A bias always exists in the research. The minimization of bias in scientific work is an important task for a researcher. However, when controversial issues are analyzed, the risk of not keeping to the facts is always present. The articles of Pan Shipman and Fred Heeren are not exceptions. However, it does not mean that they are not written objectively. They represent an analysis of two opposite opinions concerning a problem of human origin on the Earth. Each side gives its arguments. The question is to define whether they are sufficient to prove a theory.

In conclusion, it should be said that the existing theories of human origin are still controversial. However, Intelligent Design remains a religious belief without clear scientific arguments. The Evolution theory has its disadvantages as well but today it is supported by a sufficient scientific basis. That is why the Evolution theory is appropriate for teaching in the educational establishment and school in particular. Intelligent Design is a view in which you may or may not believe.

• Shipman, Pat. “Being Stalked by Intelligent Design.” American Scientist 93,  Issue 6 (2005): 500-502
• Heeren, Fred. “The Lynching of Bill Dembski.” American Spectator 33,  Issue 9 (2000): 44-50

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2021, December 21). Intelligent Design and Evolution Theories. https://studycorgi.com/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/

"Intelligent Design and Evolution Theories." StudyCorgi , 21 Dec. 2021, studycorgi.com/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/.

StudyCorgi . (2021) 'Intelligent Design and Evolution Theories'. 21 December.

1. StudyCorgi . "Intelligent Design and Evolution Theories." December 21, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Intelligent Design and Evolution Theories." December 21, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/.

StudyCorgi . 2021. "Intelligent Design and Evolution Theories." December 21, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/intelligent-design-vs-evolution/.

This paper, “Intelligent Design and Evolution Theories”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: January 14, 2022 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer

Understanding Science

How science REALLY works...

• Science cannot be absolutely defined; however, scientific endeavors have a set of key characteristics, summarized in the Science Checklist.
• Some traditions and beliefs that seem scientific actually fail to meet most of the characteristics of science.

Intelligent Design: Is it scientific?

Intelligent Design has been defined by its proponents as the idea that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause.” This “intelligent cause” is often assumed to be God. Despite this, some have tried to portray Intelligent Design as a fledgling scientific ​​ theory , almost ready to be embraced by mainstream ​​ science . Detractors have argued that Intelligent Design is nothing more than creationism in disguise. 1

So which is it? Use the Science Checklist to see how Intelligent Design differs from science:

Now it’s up to you. How does Intelligent Design differ from science?

To see our answer, click here .

Intelligent Design is very different from science. Though the idea deals with phenomena in the natural world, research in this area does not bear any of the other hallmarks of science. Most importantly, though proponents sometimes make testable — and refuted — claims that relate to evolutionary theory, Intelligent Design itself is not testable and so cannot be validated by the central method of science — testing ideas against evidence from the natural world.

1 National Center for Science Education. What is "Intelligent Design" Creationism? Retrieved October 30, 2008 from http://ncseweb.org/creationism/general/what-is-intelligent-design-creationism.

Subscribe to our newsletter

• Understanding Science 101
• The science flowchart
• Science stories
• Grade-level teaching guides
• Teaching resource database
• Journaling tool
• Misconceptions

Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design: A scientific theory that holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than undirected process such as natural selection.

Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the  methods  commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude 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. ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arises from an intelligent cause. The form of information that is produced by intelligent action, and thus reliably indicates design, is generally called “specified complexity” or “complex and specified information” (CSI).

On this page you can download an annotated bibliography of peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific articles supporting, applying, or arising from the theory of intelligent design. You also can read a description of the intelligent design research community and its aims.

Submit a peer-reviewed paper for inclusion on this page.

Bibliography of Peer-Reviewed and Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design.

Download the full bibliography  in PDF format.

Intelligent Design Research Community

There are multiple hubs of ID-related research. For details see our Research Home Page . ID researchers have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some published by mainstream university presses), trade-press books, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books. These papers have appeared in scientific journals such as  Journal of Theoretical Biology , PLOS One , BIO-Complexity , Journal of Bacteriology , Journal of Molecular Biology , Journal of Mathematical Biology , Complexity , Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling , Life , Entropy , Quarterly Review of Biology , Frontiers in Bioscience , Acta Biotheoretica , Biomimetics , Biomimetics and Bioinspiration, Systems Engineering , Journal of the Royal Statistical Society , Journal of BioSemiotics, Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres , Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum , Frontiers in Robotics and AI , Perspectives in Biology and Medicine , Protein Science , Physics Essays, Physica Scripta, Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, Journal of Engineering Design , Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington , Annual Review of Genetics , and others. Collectively, this research is converging on a consensus: many complex features of life and the universe cannot arise by unguided processes (e.g., Darwinian evolution), but indicate an intelligent cause. This body of work also shows that intelligent design is a legitimate scientific field worthy of consideration by the scientific community. Many of these peer-reviewed pro-ID publications are listed and described below.

Despite ID’s publication record, we note parenthetically that  recognition in peer-reviewed literature is not an absolute requirement to demonstrate an idea’s scientific merit . Darwin’s own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience — his  Origin of Species  — not in a peer-reviewed paper. Nonetheless, ID’s peer-reviewed publication record shows that it deserves — and is receiving — serious consideration by the scientific community.

The purpose of ID’s research program is thus to engage open-minded scientists and thoughtful laypersons with credible, persuasive, peer-reviewed, empirical data supporting intelligent design. And this is happening. ID has already gained the kind of scientific recognition you would expect from a young (and vastly underfunded) but promising scientific field. The scientific progress of ID has won the serious attention of skeptics in the scientific community, who engage in scientific debate with ID and attend private scientific conferences allowing off-the-record discussion with ID proponents.

Selected List of Peer-Reviewed Scientific Publications Supportive of Intelligent Design

The list below provides bibliographic information for  a selection of the peer-reviewed scientific publications supportive of intelligent design published in scientific journals, conference proceedings, or academic anthologies:

• Stephen C. Meyer,  “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,”   Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington , Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) ( HTML ).
• Michael J. Behe,  “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’”   The Quarterly Review of Biology , Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).
• Douglas D. Axe,  “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,”   Journal of Molecular Biology , Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).
• Michael Behe and David W. Snoke,  “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,”   Protein Science , Vol. 13 (2004).
• William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II,  “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,”   Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics , Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).
• Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe,  “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,”   BIO-Complexity , Vol. 2011(1) (2011).
• Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke,  “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,”   BIO-Complexity , Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).
• Winston Ewert, “AminoGraph Analysis of the Auditory Protein Prestin From Bats and Whales Reveals a Dependency-Graph Signal That Is Missed by the Standard Convergence Model,” BIO-Complexity , 2023: 1 (2023).
• Steinar Thorvaldsen and Ola Hössjer, “Estimating the information content of genetic sequence data,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C: Applied Statistics , 2023: qlad062 (2023).
• Richard S. Gunasekera, Komal K. B. Raja, Suresh Hewapathirana, Emanuel Tundrea, Vinodh Gunasekera, Thushara Galbadage, and Paul A. Nelson, “ORFanID: A web-based search engine for the discovery and identification of orphan and taxonomically restricted gens,” PLOS One , 18 (10): e0291260 (2023).
• Stuart Burgess, Alex Beeston, Joshua Carr, Kallia Siempou, Maya Simmonds, and Yasmin Zanker, “A Bio-Inspired Arched Foot with Individual Toe Joints and Plantar Fascia,” Biomimetics , 8 (6): 455 (2023).
• Olen R. Brown and David A. Hullender, “Neo-Darwinism must Mutate to survive,” Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology , 172: 24-38 (2022).
• Ola Hössjer, Günter Bechly, and Ann Gauger, “On the waiting time until coordinated mutations get fixed in regulatory sequences,” Journal of Theoretical Biology , Vol. 524: 110657 (2021).
• Steinar Thorvaldsen and Ola Hössjer, “Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular machines and systems,” Journal of Theoretical Biology , 501: 110352 (September 21, 2020).
• Ola Hössjer and Ann Gauger, “A single-couple origin is possible,” BIO-Complexity , 2019: 1 (2019).
• Ola Hössjer, Günter Bechly, and Ann Gauger, “Phase-type distribution approximations of the waiting time until coordinated mutations get fixed in a population.” Chapter 12 in: Silvestrov, S., Malyarenko, A. & Rancic, M. (eds): Stochastic Processes and Algebraic Structures – From Theory Towards Applications. Volume 1: Stochastic Processes and Applications. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics, 271: 245-313 (2018).
• Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mendel’s Paper on the Laws of Heredity (1866): Solving the Enigma of the Most Famous ‘Sleeping Beauty’ in Science,” eLS (Jon Wiley & Sons, 2017).
• Paul A. Nelson and Richard J.A. Buggs, “Next Generation Apomorphy: The Ubiquity of Taxonomically Restricted Genes,” in Next Generation Systematics, ed. Peter D. Olson, Joseph Hughes, and James A. Cotton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), pp. 237-263.
• Dustin J. Van Hofwegen, Carolyn J. Hovde, and Scott A. Minnich, “Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA,” Journal of Bacteriology , 198 (7): 1022-1034 (2016).
• David W. Snoke, Jeffrey Cox, and Donald Petcher, “Suboptimality and Complexity in Evolution,” Complexity , 21(1): 322-327 (September/October, 2015).
• Jonathan Wells, “Membrane Patterns Carry Ontogenetic Information That Is Specified Independently of DNA,” BIO-Complexity , 2014: 2 (2014).
• Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some further research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology , 1-21 (2010).
• Vladimir I. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov,  “The ‘Wow! Signal’ of the terrestrial genetic code,”   Icarus , Vol. 224 (1): 228-242 (May, 2013).
• Joseph A. Kuhn,  “Dissecting Darwinism,”   Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings , Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).
• Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II,  “Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,”   Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics , pp. 3047-3053 (October, 2009).
• Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu,  “ Stylus : A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,”   PLoS One , Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).
• Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors,  “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,”   Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling , Vol. 4:47 (2007).
• David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors,  “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,”   Physics of Life Reviews , Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).
• Frank J. Tipler,  “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,”   International Journal of Astrobiology , Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003).
• Michael J. Denton, Craig J. Marshall, and Michael Legge,  “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,”   Journal of Theoretical Biology , Vol. 219: 325-342 (2002).
• Stanley L. Jaki,  “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,”   American Journal of Physics , Vol. 55(10):884-888 (October 1987).
• Granville Sewell,  “Postscript,”  in  Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (New York: Springer Verlag, 1985).
• A.C. McIntosh,  “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics , Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).
• Richard v. Sternberg , “DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes,”   Acta Biotheoretica , Vol. 56(3):205-232 (September, 2008).
• Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler,  “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,”   Annual Review of Genetics , Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).
• Douglas D. Axe,  “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,”   Journal of Molecular Biology , Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).
• William A. Dembski,  The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilitie s  (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

Again, for a more complete list of peer-reviewed pro-ID scientific publications, please download the  full bibliography .

Intelligent Design and Evolution Essay

Stephen Jay Gould argues that plants like orchids have characteristic features that link them to the ordinary flowers through the process of evolution. Orchids produce their intricate parts from other parts of ordinary parts that are meant for other purposes. The fact that orchids were not designed by an ideal designer but rather obtain their parts from a limited set of available components is enough to justify that indeed evolution is the course of such unique designs in the plant kingdom. He argues that if it were God to be involved in the making of this design, then He would not have utilized parts that are meant to serve other purposes.Goud emphasizes the fact that Orchids structure for cross pollination is not a making of an engineer, but it is due to evolution to adapt to the changing environment. Therefore it is only evolution theorists who can come up with better explanations for this design.

A critical look at the Pandas true thumb reveals that, the thumb is committed to another role that is too specialized for a different function whereby it has been modified as an opposable manipulating digit. This can only be attributed to the process of evolution and thus it is supposed to be well explained by evolutionary theorists like Darwin.

Given the unique and complex structure of orchid plants and the thumb of the panda, which have resulted from evolution, it is very clear that an intelligent designer can provide an explanation for the occurrence of such structures. However it is unfortunate that evolution does not provide adequate explanations on how these unique structures in both plants and animals occur. This is evidenced by the fact that In Darwin proof that modern beings are products of history, he put focus on what is termed as oddities. That he relied on imperfections when perfections cannot be used to demonstrate history because when perfections occur they leave no traces behind.

Goud and Paley differ in their arguments at the point where they both recognize that indeed irregularities , imperfections or oddities exists in plants animals and other forms of art. As for Paley he asserts that irregularities and imperfections are of little or no weight. On the other hand Goud argues that indeed oddities are sure indicators of history. This can be viewed in terms of imperfections in the design of plants and animals.

In my opinion Goud presents the strongest and most convincing argument concerning the issues of evolution as brought out by Charles Darwin. This argument has been supported and well illustrated by relevant examples of the orchid plant and the thumb of the panda.

He underscores the fact with evolution, there are imperfections that come in the ancestral history of modern plants and animals. He further puts emphasis on the point that with evolution there is nothing like perfection since perfection does not require a history. He also mentions Darwins like for the rudimentary structures in their line of descent and notes that the origin of such organs is simple. The way the author uses the two examples of structures in both the orchid and giant panda to justify evolution is a clear indication that his argument is more convincing and stronger than that of Paley who employs the example of how a watch is organized into various parts and compares them to plants and animals undergoing evolution.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, December 2). Intelligent Design and Evolution. https://ivypanda.com/essays/intelligent-design-and-evolution/

"Intelligent Design and Evolution." IvyPanda , 2 Dec. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/intelligent-design-and-evolution/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Intelligent Design and Evolution'. 2 December.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Intelligent Design and Evolution." December 2, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/intelligent-design-and-evolution/.

1. IvyPanda . "Intelligent Design and Evolution." December 2, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/intelligent-design-and-evolution/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Intelligent Design and Evolution." December 2, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/intelligent-design-and-evolution/.

• Nature vs. Nurture Debate from a New Perspective
• Andrew Chreng and Panda Restaurant Group
• William Paley's Watchmaker Analogy
• Richard Hayes: Supersize Your Child
• Topics in “The Essence of Anthropology” by Haviland
• Anthropology: Genus Homo and Human Birth Evolution
• Biological Anthropology, Lamarck’s and Darwin’s View of Evolution
• Evolution: Different Types of Selection

• YouTube icon

Evolution News & Science Today

Intelligent design, two measures of intelligent design’s advance: peer-reviewed publications and id 3.0.

It’s a talking point for evolutionists that in the past two decades, intelligent design has stalled. Hardly! On the contrary, I’m delighted today to share with you two very impressive measures of how much ID has advanced in that time. One is the latest update of our “ Bibliography of Peer-Reviewed and Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design .” Go to the link to download the full bibliography, with annotations, which is the length of a book — 186 pages in total. That’s not bad for such a young field.

Another measure of ID’s advance can be found on the newly updated homepage for the “ ID 3.0 Research Program .” The program (following what we call ID 1.0 and ID 2.0) covers the years 2016 to the present and includes both pure and applied ID research. As the page makes clear, ID 3.0 is actually a much larger project than what we’re able to reveal publicly:

Below we highlight a partial list of ID 3.0 projects, researchers, as well as papers produced by those projects. Some ID 3.0 projects and researchers are not listed to protect the investigators from threats to their careers if it were publicly known they were doing ID-related research. Some papers for some projects are not listed for the same reasons.

The Tip of the Iceberg

The same holds true for the ID bibliography. They are both, as two colleagues emphasized in a meeting today, just the “tip of the iceberg.” Even so, what can be shared is worthy of celebration. Check out this partial list of research teams operating under ID 3.0:

• Bacterial Adaptation
• Brain Blood Flow
• Cancer and Bacteria-Killing Nanomachines [CL9] 
• Design Detection
• Design and Systematics
• Human Origins
• Engineering Research Group
• Flagellar Evolution
• Junk DNA Workgroup
• Mind-Body Workgroup
• Orphan Genes
• Plants and Cancer
• Protein Origins and “Protein Zoo”
• Waiting Times

Casey Luskin is Primary Manager of the ID 3.0 Research Program. In brief, 

Discovery Institute’s Science Research Program entails a vibrant community of scientists and scholars who are conducting scientific research to investigate the evidence for design in nature, and also research that critically investigates the ability of material mechanisms to account for the complexity of nature. Much of this research is directly funded by Discovery Institute, while other research is conducted by a network of ID-friendly scientists that Discovery Institute actively collaborates with and sustains.

There are more than 20 research projects under ID 3.0 with more than 250 peer-reviewed publications and a budget of more than $10 million since the launch date.

As the introduction to the annotated biography puts it, the record “shows that ID is a serious scientific theory backed by a community of credible scientists, and that ID deserves — and is receiving — serious consideration by the scientific community.” The Darwinist talking point about how ID is “stalled” couldn’t be further from the truth. At  Evolution News , we’ll be picking out some highlights of both the ID 3.0 page and the annotated bibliography. But you can go to the respective pages and read it all now for yourself.

Debating Junk DNA

Oh, and one more thing. When Casey Luskin  debated Rutgers University biologist Dan Stern Cardinale  last week on “junk DNA,” he referred to a recent article here offering an “ Exhaustive (Yet Still Exhausting) List of Papers Discovering Function for ‘Junk’ DNA .” That too is just the tip of the iceberg.

Dr. Stern Cardinale was (cordially and respectfully) defending the view of the human genome as being packed with evolutionary debris, as evolutionists had expected. Dr. Luskin had the easier task of affirming ID’s prediction that the genome would be found to display widespread function. It’s good to be able to report that, on a variety of fronts, science is bearing out what ID has to say.