Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: Science vs. Creationism

Introduction: Defining Evolution and Intelligent Design

According to Stanley A. Rice, associate professor of biology, the term evolution can best be defined as a process involving many different kinds of change — usually gradual changes related to what is known as adaptation — which refers to "genetic changes over time in populations of organisms" (150). This definition is very similar to Charles Darwin's idea of the survival of the fittest, meaning that certain organisms, over vast lengths of time, learn to adapt to their individual environments and thus survive to produce better offspring, while other organisms fail to adapt and eventually become extinct.

In contrast, the so-called theory of intelligent design (ID) is what Rice calls "minimalist creationism." It claims that "there is an irreducible complexity within biological systems and structures" and maintains that "only an intelligent creator could have brought such complex systems into existence" (213). After examining a substantial amount of material on both evolution and intelligent design, it becomes clear that evolution prevails over intelligent design. The existence of a creator — that is, God — cannot be proven, and intelligent design, when examined via the scientific method, fails to live up to its basic premise.

The Scientific Method and Physical Causation

The scientific method, which Darwin's longtime friend Thomas Henry Huxley called "organized common sense" (Dupré, 56), depends upon certain basic rules and features that modern-day scientists utilize to develop hypotheses and explain what they have found in the field or in the laboratory. For example, through the scientific method, scientists investigate only physical causation and occurrences, meaning that scientists "do not introduce non-physical causation into scientific explanations or investigations" (Rice, 355). This principle excludes things or entities that may lie outside of physical reality — namely, the supernatural or the metaphysical — both of which cannot be proven nor shown to exist.

Therefore, the theory of intelligent design cannot satisfy this particular requirement of the scientific method, due to its insistence on the influence of a creator: a supreme being or God whose hands and mind created and manipulated the basic building blocks of life to form life as we know it, in all of its vast complexity and beauty.

Repeatability, Miracles, and the Dover Case

The scientific method also requires that scientists and researchers investigate only repeatable occurrences. Testing in the laboratory must produce the same results over and over again in order to be considered valid and reliable. As John Dupré points out, this is the main reason that science "is limited to physical processes and data; miracles only happen once or extremely infrequently and cannot be counted on to recur repeatedly" (156).

This feature of the scientific method is clearly reflected in the case discussed in the article "Intelligent Design Derailed," which concerns Christian conservatives in Dover, Pennsylvania who forced the local school board to insert ID into the biology classroom as "an alternative to the theory of evolution." When a Pennsylvania court ruled against the Christian conservatives, the judge stated that "intelligent design violates centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking supernatural causation and by making assertions that cannot be tested or proved" via the scientific method. The judge also stressed that ID is not supported by scientific research and cannot be tested through scientific theory or research. Thus, "the core argument for intelligent design," as the judge concluded, "the supposedly irreducible complexity of key biological systems, has clear theological (i.e., religious) overtones" (New York Times, Internet).

Conclusion: Nature as the Ultimate Designer

Perhaps we should heed the words of Charles Darwin himself, who before his historic voyage aboard the H.M.S. Beagle between 1831 and 1836 was a devout Christian and creationist: "There is a grandeur in this view of life. Whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved" (On the Origin of Species, Internet).

It is abundantly clear that Darwin, the former creationist, was thoroughly convinced after his voyages that evolution is a fact of life — one that renders ID redundant and without scientific merit. But perhaps Darwin understood something we continue to struggle with: that nature itself is the ultimate designer, unknown unto itself but ever present — the quintessential intelligence without shape, form, or preconceived notions of design.

Bibliography

Behe, Michael J. "Design for Living." New York Times. February 7, 2005. Internet. Retrieved October 21, 2008 at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/opinion/07behe.html?_r=1&oref=slogin.

Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. 2008. Internet. Retrieved October 21, 2008 at

Dupré, John. Darwin's Legacy: What Evolution Means Today. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

"Intelligent Design Derailed." New York Times. December 22, 2005. Internet. Retrieved October 21, 2008 at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/opinion/22thur1.html.

Rice, Stanley A. Encyclopedia of Evolution. New York: Checkmark Books, 2007.