Why Intelligent Design Is Not a Viable Scientific Theory

Why Intelligent Design Is Not a Viable Scientific Theory

Evolutionary theories have sparked a fierce, passionate debate between followers of science and religion, respectively, from the last few hundred years to present day. Scandals relating to the topic, such as the example of a school board’s science curriculum in Dover, Pennsylvania, are broadcasted on a local, national and global level and one would be hard pressed to find an individual that does not have an opinion on the matter.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Religious extremist believe life should be credited to their ever-wonderful and wise God, opposing the generally accepted theory scientist have been working and testing for years, that of evolution through Natural Selection. This debate has been ongoing for literally centuries despite one side being embarrassingly unprepared. The amount of plausible and logical arguments the theory of Natural Selection brings to the table far outnumbers those of Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design proposes that “God” created earth. The theory states that God created the earth and all of it’s inhabitants in 6 days, the earth is no older than 4000 or so years and apparently, God experienced an impulsive whim (perhaps he/she was lonely? ) and with a loud POP! so we, the humans, became. Of course, God being who he/she is couldn’t possibly have made any mistakes; we were created absolutely flawless (this last bit not doing anything in aiding the fight against the narcissists of the world).

The supporters of Intelligent Design also believe humans and all other organisms are not only incapable of change but that change is unnecessary thanks to the absolute perfection of our state (I. D on Trial). What Natural Selection proposes is pure and simple: evolution. Scientists believe all beings on this earth adapt to their surroundings over millions and millions of years with the primary intention of increasing their chance of survival.

Using Darwin’s example of the Galapagos Finches, we can see that there are several different variations of the bird all with their unique beaks that correspond to the type of food available. A finch living on an island with lots of hard-shelled nuts will have a thicker beak, one able to crack the shells to obtain the nut within (Futuyma, p. ). A theory is “A large body of information that has withstood many tests. [… ] It is a well supported argument” (ID on Trial). Natural Selection is a theory that is consistent with the definition.

It has survived the hundreds of tests and everyday continues to lead scientists to new discoveries (ex: fossils). So why doesn’t the term theory apply to Intelligent Design? Intelligent Design has nothing to test. It is an abstract thing, it’s not tangible or part of the physical world. When one speaks about their ideas pertaining to Intelligent Design, one cannot support the conclusion with any evidentiary proof. One of few points made by them is that life is irreducibly complex. An organism can not survive without any singular part.

They believe that our design is too complex to have been designed by mere evolution, it must have been designed by an intelligent being (Class Notes) but how can this be tested? It can’t which renders the word theory as incorrect when referencing Intelligent Design because no tests can be preformed. Intelligent Design’s “logic” has also been proven wrong several times over by use of many things, one of which is fossils. Tiktaalik, the fossil of an transitional animal that made the link between primitive fish and tetrapods (I.

D on Trial), is of vital importance in the argument against Intelligent Design. Tiktaalik and the genetic mutation he survived actually proves the Intelligent Design IDEA wrong. It proves that an organism had evolved to adapt to it’s new environment and the process of evolution through Natural Selection does indeed exist. Although every person is entitled to believe what they will as a PERSONAL belief, it is wrong to manipulate the thoughts and beliefs of others especially when the belief you’re not-so-subtly trying to ram down an individual’s throat has no factual basis.

Intelligent Design has no concrete or evidentiary proof to support their ideology. It lacks any premises to support their conclusions. It is based on pure speculation; the idea is the offspring of a wild imagination. It has been proven as incoherent on several occasions such as the discovery of Tiktaalik. Intelligent Design does not even correspond to the basic definition of a theory! Therefore, Intelligent Design is not an alternative to Evolution through Natural Selection.


I'm Iris

Would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out