The Theory of Intelligent Design (ID) - Research Paper Example

The Theory of Intelligent Design (ID) Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program that tries to explore the evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design postulates that all life forms on earth possess various unique features, which link them to the work of an intelligent cause. Through an in depth analysis of the components of a living organism, design theorists purport to distinguish whether various natural forms exist by chance, natural law, intelligent design, or combination of the three. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced through the actions of intelligent agent. Scientists seek to find objects which have same types of informational properties portraying the work of one creator, the intelligent designer. Intelligent design relies on these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures by examining the complex and specified information contained in DNA. The theory of Intelligent Design argues that life and everything of nature in the universe was designed by an anonymous intelligent mind (House 17). However, proponents of this theory have been unable to disclose or prove the existence of the purported intelligent mind, leaving the burden of proof to scientists and theologians. According to House (17), evidence that the proponents of ID theory display is derived from their understanding of cosmology and molecular Biology. As part of the argument, ID theorists used kidney as an example by claiming that the organ was intelligently designed to perform its functions and that it exhibits irreducible complexity. The proponents of the theory further direct their arguments to the bacterium flagellum, which they purport to have been intelligently designed to an extent that any detachment can lead to entire mechanical failure. House (58) demonstrates that the odd shaped stone discovered by archeologists was an intelligent design that should have been used as tool for digging. In order to strengthen the ID theory, Behe, a proponent of the theory employed the use of a mousetrap as an example of irreducible complexity, which he proved dysfunctional when any part would be removed. Furthermore, Rael (6) a news editor then a messenger provides a much stable debating ground for the proponents of the ID theory. According to Rael (6), there are some supernatural unique beings believed to have created life on earth. However, every step of creation was a correlative product of science and religion. Rael (7) points that the creators of the world were capable of communicating to the human beings through telepathy. The designers of life on the earth were scientists who emanated from a far planet with a keen interested in creating a cloned human being (Rael 11). It is claimed that the government of the imagined planet disliked the idea of cloned human beings for fear that the creatures might exhibit superior mental capacities and powers, which can cause troubles to the pre-existing beings (Rael 15). This compelled the scientist to conduct reconnaissance on the earth to establish its viability for human cloning. Rael (11) confirms that at the time of reconnaissance the earth was completely covered with water and dense mist. When on the earth’s atmosphere, the designers investigated the sun’s cosmic rays and realized that they were harmless to life. The scientists then trenched soil from the sea bed and pilled to form a dry land. Thereafter, plants and vegetables were created from chemicals and designed to survive particular climatic conditions of different regions (Rael 13). The scientists worked hand in hand with artists who decorated every creature with various colors. According to Rael (13) the initial creation of fish was in the form of plankton then small fish and finally large fish. Rael (14) exemplifies that the process of creation involved stiff competition from different creation groups, an act that led to the formation of frightful animals and monsters. Rael (15) unveils that at the final stages of creation, the scientists resolved to create artificial human beings who could resemble them in appearance. This process involved the use of cloning method whereby children were raised in test tubes. The process was carried by different groups focused on creation activities and ultimately all creatures were brought together for comparison. In the views of Rael (15), different groups created different human beings who resembled their particular body colors, thus resulting to various races on the planet earth. The proponents of the ID theory have been working hard to dismiss the methodological naturalism as a false idea, which does not clearly explain the origin of the initial organism of evolution theory (House 52). From the mousetrap experiment performed by Behe, the theorists of ID assert that the theory is scientific since it provides solution to the internal conceptual problems that evolution cannot solve. The theorist ID insists that the theory is scientific because it generates positive and negative results in various tests, which can be confirmed through scientific facts. House (45) confirms that the opponents of the ID theory, especially a group called the Kansas for Science Education claims that ID is a movement disguised as a science that allows supernatural forces into scientific explanation. Furthermore, the group closely links the ID theory to religion, which ordains God as the supernatural designer. According to Pavao , ID fails to hold any part on either religion and science, rather he sees the theory as a mere philosophical argument that cannot light afire or launch a spacecraft thereby missing links with science. On the other side of religion, Christians fault the theory since it does not admit that God was the intelligent designer even at a time it is unable to figure out the unnamed creator through scientific research (Pavao). Ravitz (3) criticizes proponents of ID theory as individuals who simply work hard in exploring market in schools without a viable direction of their argument. According to Ravitz (6), the definition of secular humanism as evident with the proponents of ID causes a lot of public confusion when it comes to scientific study. In the views of Ravitch (29), other opponents of the ID theory like Miller worked tirelessly to dispute the mousetrap demonstration of irreducible complexity by arguing that the parts could be replaced without spoiling the entire mechanism. According to Dembski and McDowell (28) the statement released by the pro-ID proposing that students be allowed to read about ID theory as an alternate of Evolution theory, faced a lot of opposition from individuals who preferred proper teaching of the topic by teachers. In conclusion, Intelligent design should not be allowed in school curriculum until the proponents provide or mention the supernatural being linked to the creation. The ID theorists should also work to unveil the reasons behind the natural calamities that befall human beings from time to time. The cause of death should as well be explained before the theory gets academic approval. Otherwise, the proponents of this theory should be banned and even denied the right to speak on the matter since for a long time they have been pilling accusations on the evolution theory while not providing substantial glamour on their theory. It is true that allowing open teaching of theory of Intelligent Design in schools will only work towards spreading Christianity even to individuals who do not hold Christian beliefs. This will automatically breach religious rights of non-Christians. Works cited Dembski, William and McDowell Sean. Understanding Intelligent Design. Irvine, California. Harvest House Publisher, 2008. Print. House, H. Intelligent design one hundred and one. Grand Rapids. Kregler Publications, 2008. Print. Pavao, Paul. Intelligent Design Theory.2009. Web. 8 Dec. 2011. < http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/> Rael. Intelligent Design: Message from the Designers. New York. Nova Distribution. 2006. Print. Ravitch, Frank. Marketing Intelligent Design: Law and the Creationist Agenda. New York. Cambridge University Press, 2011. Print. Read More