Heckle: Unintelligent design part 3: Misrepresentation of evolution

Michael Heckle

Although proponents of creationism spend most of their time attempting unsuccessfully to poke holes into the theory of evolution, what they don’t seem to realize is the default claim is not something supernatural. The idea of intelligent design itself goes against the scientific method. It starts with the claim that the Earth was created by some God-like figure, instead of any real observation of the natural world. The few affirmative claims that creationists do make are neither based in fact nor reality.

There is no accepted scientific theory of intelligent design.

According to The Discovery Institute, “intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.”

To prove this, proponents of intelligent design attempt to use the argument of specified complexity. To qualify something as specified and complex information, the information must be specified and complex. DNA, for example, is often used in an attempt to provide some sort of validity to intelligent design. Since there are billions of DNA base pairs and they are also species-specific, DNA can be considered complex and specified information. Creationists fail to explain why that automatically implies an ultimate designer like a God. Just the existence of complex and specific information does not make it evidence for a creator.

The argument of irreducible complexity is also used in conjunction with specified complexity. Irreducible complexity states that certain biomechanical structures in the observable world are too well paired to be explained by evolution. While Darwin himself admitted that natural selection would crumble if irreducible complexity were to be found, scientists today better understand the mechanisms of evolution.

A common claim of irreducible complexity is the presence of bacterial flagellum in certain bacteria. The bacterial flagellum are used in some bacteria as a swimming mechanism. Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University, argues that this is a clear example of irreducible complexity.

However, in order for a system to be irreducibly complex, every part of that system must be necessary, so much so that taking only one part away will cause the system to completely fall apart. In addition, if an irreducibly complex system is made up of smaller parts, all of those parts must have no other function. Some bacteria also use a subset of the bacterial flagellum to inject toxins and chemicals into other cells and proteins. No true example of irreducible complexity has ever been found, and most scientists entirely reject the concept. 

Even if scientists found evidence of CSI or irreducibly complex systems, proponents of creationism would still be left holding an empty bag. All of these lines of evidence only attempt to show that other forces besides evolution are at play. This does not mean that such a force is either intelligent or impermeable.

Furthermore, no actual evidence of any other sort of force has ever been found. The theories themselves lack credibility as well since they are untestable. Those that are testable, such as irreducible complexity, have been refuted by evidence. Supporters of and believers in intelligent design seem to recognize the scientific inaccuracies of their deceptive theory as they rarely publish on intelligent design in established scientific journals. Additionally, they refuse to modify their theory in accordance with evidence.

Advocates for intelligent design organize themselves into a community devoted to their ideas and not to the truth. So far, there has been no research done by intelligent design advocates that has led to any sort of scientific discovery. The majority of creationists’ arguments and researches are not only unscientific but also misrepresents the actuality of evolution.

This blatant dishonesty is in no way science.