Misconceptions Of Intelligent Design Theory

There are many different theories and opinions on how the world came to be. From Charles Darwin and evolution to creationism and intelligent design, these theories all demonstrate the human ability for people to decide how our world as evolved. These theories all have their pros and cons, similarities and differences. It is important to evaluate the position of these theories based on other forms of methodology and foundations in science. This way, it can help us more fully and or come close to determining the credibility of the theory that we choose to further evaluate. I personally think that intelligent design holds up well as a scientific view to a certain point. It has things going for and against it. I think that there are misconceptions
on how intelligent design is not necessarily considered a scientific view. By assessing this position on intelligent design in light of methodology and foundations such as multiple independent lines of evidence, observation, and argument forms, it can be determined that intelligent design holds up decently well as a scientific view.

First let us start by defining the intelligent design theory.
According to the book, Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, & Evolution, “Intelligent design theory claims that there is evidence of design in nature and that the theory of evolution is inadequate to explain what is seen in the natural world.” (Haarsma, 178) There are a lot of misconceptions out there between the theory of intelligent design and the intelligent design movement. The movement is definitely associated with religion but the theory itself is not. “Although it is often motivated by religion, intelligent design theory avoids making specific religious claims” (Haarsma, 178). Some evolutionists believe that the theory itself is not scientific. They claim that it is a religious idea because most people who believe in intelligent design believe that God is the creator (Haarsma, 178). However, this is not the whole case because almost all scientists agree upon certain parts of intelligent
design.

There are two key components to the theory of intelligent design. They are fine-tuning and biological/irreducible complexity. “…our actual universe is amazingly well suited for life” (Haarsma, 179). There are many examples of this such as the force of gravity, the expansion rate of the universe, fundamental physical forces and others. All of these things have just the right amounts of their properties and if they were different, our world would be much different. Scientifically, fine-tuning claims that, “The fundamental laws of physics and the basic parameters of the universe fall within a narrow range of parameters that allow life to exist” (Haarsma, 182). Practically all scientists of every worldview including atheists support this scientific claim (Haarsma, 183). This provides a good example of how intelligent design itself holds up as a scientific view. More specifically, a sensible explanation of fine-tuning is that, “the laws and parameters of our universe were designed for the purpose of supporting life” (Haarsma, 182). People with religious beliefs and background believe that God designed the universe and this is how they will explain fine-tuning. But the theory alone does not involve religion.
Secondly, intelligent design involves the idea of biological or irreducible complexity.
This is the part of intelligent design that is debated much more and that is a little unstable scientifically. “Biological life is too complex to have evolved according to the theory of evolution” (Haarsma, 183). This takes into account that a system is made up of multiple interacting parts, which all contribute to a function and if one of the parts is taken out then the system cannot accomplish that function (Class 36). The problem with this is there is not a ton of scientific evidence to support the theory. Intelligent design enthusiasts use probability and pattern to argue their case. They feel that it is improbable for complex biological characteristics to evolve by evolution and they feel that an intelligent being would want to interfere to create complex biological patterns (Haarsma, 185). The first half of this can be considered scientifically but the second half is very difficult to do so. This is where intelligent design is a bit unsteady scientifically. It makes good claims for a scientific view but then it has drawbacks. A scientific claim for biological/irreducible complexity is, “It is very improbable that complex biological features could have evolved via the mechanism of evolution. It is very improbable that a living cell could self-assemble out of chemicals” (Haarsma, 187). This claim is heavily disputed due to fossil evidence that supports
evolution.