In this blog post, we will examine the arguments put forward by intelligent design and consider whether it is a valid scientific theory or merely a religious belief.
In a world dominated by the creationist belief that God created the universe and life, a man named Darwin came forward with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution fundamentally shook the creationist belief that we were created by God. At the same time, science developed rapidly, and natural phenomena that had previously been explained only by divine providence or the work of the devil began to be explained by scientific logic. As a result, religion, which had dominated the worldview of humanity, faced a crisis. The clear logic and solid evidence of science swept away the false pretenses of religion. Science believers even claim that religion will no longer be necessary once science solves all of nature’s mysteries.
Intelligent design is a new savior that has emerged from this total crisis of religion. According to “intelligent design,” what we should focus on in our exploration of nature is not “the product of chance” but “something that was intentionally created.” The probability of life, such as humans, appearing on Earth since the beginning of the universe is extremely low. The possibility of the various processes necessary to reach that stage occurring is so close to a miracle that it is almost impossible without artificial manipulation from outside, according to this theory. Proponents of intelligent design criticize the scientific community for preventing religious elements from entering their domain and argue that questions that cannot yet be explained by science can be resolved by using theological elements, which will provide science with a new window on the world. They present scientifically plausible evidence to support their claim that such theological elements can become science.
The first argument they present is “irreducible complexity.” Irreducible complexity refers to a system in which several parts work together, and if even one part is removed, the entire system becomes inoperable. Take the mousetrap in the book as an example. If the spring is removed from the mousetrap, it will no longer work. This concept of “irreducible complexity” is used as one of the arguments against the theory of evolution. According to the theory of evolution, the mechanisms that enable life to exist today have evolved over time, and in the past, their components were incomplete. Therefore, the logic is that their functions were also incomplete. This supports the argument that the system itself did not exist in the past.
The second argument is the “finely tuned universe.” As explained above, there are countless conditions necessary for life to appear in this universe, and the probability of life existing that meets these conditions is almost miraculous. Therefore, if the conditions had been slightly different, life would not have existed. Therefore, it cannot be considered a coincidence that such a miracle occurred, and it is believed to be the intentional act of an “intelligent being.” This is also quite convincing.
The next argument is “clear complexity.” This is the argument that it is difficult for clear things to exist by chance in a complex environment, and that it is difficult for “complex yet clear” life forms to appear through the random processes of chance in evolutionary theory. This, too, can ultimately be explained by the intervention of an “intelligent being.” There are other arguments, such as the “watchmaker argument,” but ultimately, they only argue that the intentional intervention of an “intelligent being” is what makes life possible.
Intelligent design theory opposes the theory of evolution by presenting these arguments and raising philosophical questions about life. In response, the theory of evolution takes an empirical approach and attempts to refute intelligent design theory by presenting evidence based on scientific logic. The limitations inherent in the theory of evolution are clear. This is why intelligent design theory has been able to emerge and exploit these gaps. Although evidence supporting the theory of evolution has been steadily discovered over the past several decades, establishing its current position, it is still basically nothing more than a hypothesis established through observation. It has been consistently verified, but because our view of nature is limited by that hypothesis, we only accept limited information. Above all, because it is a theory, it can be proven wrong by counterexamples. In other words, it is still only a theory that is close to the truth, and there is a possibility that it is wrong.
Therefore, current research is constantly striving to elevate the “theory of evolution,” which is a kind of conjecture, to the level of a complete law. To refute a theory, one must cite examples that contradict the logic of that theory. To do so, one must carefully search for such examples and methodically examine whether they contradict the theory.
To refute the theory of evolution, one must cite evidence that contradicts it. However, intelligent design theory fails to cite evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution. Instead, it cites things that cannot yet be explained by the theory of evolution or other scientific fields. It then claims that the theory of evolution is wrong because it cannot explain these things. It is critical of science’s attitude toward the origin of life and claims that the origin of life is only possible through “intelligent design.” However, it does not present any clear evidence for this claim, but merely asserts that only an “intelligent being” is possible. A claim alone cannot constitute science. A scientific approach requires clear logic, numerous challenges to verify that logic, and refinement based on those challenges.
It is reprehensible to gather evidence solely for the purpose of refutation without engaging in such discussion. Empirical science is excellent at explaining various phenomena around us. However, it is true that it cannot explain the origins of the processes that cause them. This is similar to agnosticism. It may be impossible for us humans to understand the essence of things.
Science is ultimately a discipline created within the realm of human perception, so it may be difficult to discover the essence of things. Therefore, it is natural that science is powerless in discussions about the origins of things. However, it is wrong to make baseless claims that are different from science and insist that only one’s own opinion is correct. Rather, such claims are nothing more than empty words that cannot be called academic or theoretical. We must be wary of such attitudes.
Along with this, the conflict between science and religion is taking on a new form. Science is constantly presenting new evidence and theories in an effort to further solidify the theory of evolution. On the other hand, religion points out the limitations of science and asserts the existence of God and the possibility of creation. This conflict goes beyond a simple clash of knowledge and leads to profound philosophical questions about the meaning and purpose of human existence. It is possible for science and religion to develop a complementary relationship, which can be realized when both fields recognize each other’s limitations and cooperate with each other. Ultimately, the quest for truth is endless, and it is important for science and religion to recognize and respect each other’s existence along the way.
Therefore, instead of rejecting each other, science and religion should move toward recognizing each other’s strengths and cooperating with each other. Science can be used as a tool to deepen our understanding of the material world, and religion can be used as a tool to explore the meaning and value of human existence. By doing so, we will be able to pursue a broader and deeper truth, which will ultimately enrich human life.
