Is Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory - Essay Example

Is Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory? In reference with different leading readings from various philosophers, we can conclude that intelligent design is a scientific theory. This is because it serves as a source of all information theories and observations in action. The scientific model makes inferences upon observation of different levels of complexities, which are produced by the action of intelligence vs. the information that is produced through purely natural processes to interpret that life is a product of multiple intelligences. From this, we can depict that this makes no statement in reference with identity of an intelligent designer(s). However, some individuals say that intelligence action is related with the origin of different characteristics of biological life. It is evident that intelligent design begins with forms of information, which are commonly observed to produce agents of intelligence in the real world. Atheist such as zoologist Dawkins argues that if biology is a study of complicated things, then the complications are as a result of appearance and purpose. Dawkins also argues that natural selection is what led to the intelligent design; this is as a result of the challenges met in meeting the demands in the environment. To add on this, theorists such as Stephen Meyer notes that intelligent design plays a substantial role in casual activities. From theories of the above philosophers, we can conclude that intelligent design is a scientific theory, which has a basis on empirical studies on the natural environment. Structures created through the promulgation of a Discovery Institute are intelligent designs products. The institute explains that structures occur from human intelligence and not natural processes. An ideal example is the existence of God, which is a teleological argument from the traditional contemporary adaptation. It defines the origin of life as a scientific theory other than an idea based on religion. Most arguments relate to the intelligent design which refers to God as the designer. The Discovery Institute is conservatively a political institution. The intelligent design uses the view point of theistic science, whose objective is to explain science e in a different way invoking supernatural structures. In supporting its belief, ID has put forward two arguments: the specified and the irreducible complexity. Scientific community prefers the methodological naturalism to the scientific extension in explaining the supernatural structures. The scientific community has further opposed the specified and the irreducible arguments citing their factual and conceptual flaws. The intelligent design is a pseudoscience that is more religious other than scientific. However, the mainstream science rejects it due to the absence of empirical support, and it has no hypotheses. Further still, the ID describes natural structures in untestable scientific methods. This design is a creation of American creationists after revising the controversial creation-evolution theory. Court rulings pushed for the later as it rejected creation s science teaching in public schools. The court explained that creation science separated the state and the church. Of Pandas and People was the first book to be published to teach Biology in high school. The Discovery Institute began to support the intelligent design in the mid 1990s. It teamed up with the Center for Science and Culture to fund a movement of the intelligent design. The movement advocated for the inclusion of ID in the biology taught in public schools. It succeeded until 2005 when its rejection arose because it coupled with religion and creation (Dawkins 12). Origin of the concept Among the three well known religious arguments, is the intelligent design. It explains the existence of God advancing over centuries. The other two basic arguments based on religion are: the cosmological and the ontological argument. Thomas Aquinas stated that God provides direction and sets goals for natural things. This enables them to act in order to achieve results, and this process wholly depends on intelligence. William Paley in 1802 based his argument on the watchmaker analogy. He stated that nature’s adaptation and complexity illustrate God’s perfect design of creation. His argument was of dominant influence to other scientist who had earlier assumed the deistic interpretation. They believed that the design was an implementation of scientific laws. However, Charles Darwin argued that everything in existence was a result of the designed laws. The problems of poor natural designs and evil were his foremost concern. He demonstrated their solution without a designer. By 1910, the evolution of theistic had stopped all religious controversies (Dawkins 16). Fundamentalist Christianity began to oppose evolution in 1920s, and successfully called for its suspension in all public schools in the U.S. After the reintroduction of evolution in 1960s, creation science became an alternative field of study promoted by the creationist of the Young Earth. They illustrated it as a design argument aimed at defining nature’s complexity. Using the flagella bacteria, explanations relating to the complexity of irreducibility emerged. However, efforts to introduce the study in schools were prohibited by court rulings. The court viewed creation science as naturally religious, and it did not fit in the science curricula. Paley’s argument is the central point of the intelligent design sharing most of its arguments with the Creation Science. The only difference is that Paley’s argument avoids referring to the Bible. It does not mention the Noah’s flood or the Earth’s age in its explanation. Intelligent design establishes interventions that occur miraculously on history but Paley’s explains the occurrence of the deistic design by means of laws. This causes theological differences to those who believe that God’s designs are perfect and thus do not accommodate for any changes. The term scientific implies that which can test religion though it fails to stop evil and suffering. The intelligent design portrays its perfection in design and instead blames others for failing to understand that point of poor natural design. In addition, it explains that the designer does not have to produce perfect designs because their motives maybe unknown. According to Barbara Forest, the movement of intelligent design started in 1984. Jon A. Buell’s publication of Foundation for Thought and Ethics took place in the same year. In 1988, a conference held by Thaxton, a creationist and chemist and it attracted many creationists. The conference based on the origin of the information contained in the DNA (Dawkins 12). Meyer, a creationist suggested that messages that transmit DNA in the cell demonstrate the specified complexity. He obtained his explanation from the information theory. Later, in 1986 the creationist defined his approach as a more complex illustration of Paley’s argument. Thaxton explained that the specified complexity originated from an agent of intelligence. Different arguments aiming at describing how the construction of structures occurs is put across by critics. Some suggest that they were through intelligence while others say that structures are a result of natural processes. A compelling example is the arch which is by human beings and also occurs via natural processes, such as those found in National Parks. An experiment can be conducted to verify that arches are a resultant feature of natural processes. This is by taking water and sand and performing the experiment at the beach. However, these arches naturally contain relevant information concerning their construction process. On the contrary, human beings do not have any experience regarding the information of natural processes. The design theory on intelligence, clearly unfolds the underlying facts in the, unique complex information. The theory has an appropriate approach based on the natural process that gives its predictions on the observations made (Dawkins 16). Intelligent action has the potential to give information on any level in reference to the content. In his books, “The Design Inference” and “No Free Lunch”, Dembski explains the upper limit of all sorts of information that natural processes are capable of giving. He adds the word “specified” to the word high in his content of information. Believes shows that the intelligent design is useful the construction of structures. Human beings have it in mind that natural processes played no part in the creation of structures. Thus, in case of the content of low information, structures designed through natural processes. Scientific critics In any theory, conjecture or hypothesis to be considered scientific; however, it may meet all the requirements or at times meet some of these criteria. The less the theory meets the criteria, the less the theory is in terms of it being analyzed as scientific. There are arguments around proving that intelligent design does not have consistency. This is because it goes against the principle of parsimony; it does not also meet the requirements for empirical testability. Others argue that it is not falsifiable as well as correctable, progressive, dynamic, and provisional. If we can critically analyze intelligent design, we can confidently state that it aims at the fundamental basis of science. This is by ignoring the methodological naturalism of science, thereby replacing it with the theism realism. The components of the design states that naturalism explanations fails to illustrate different phenomena of which are otherwise explained by the supernatural explanations. An ideal example for this is the origin of the universe and life. The theory also goes against some scientific theories by arguing that they believe in scientism, thus promoting secularism and materialism. This counter argument is as the result of the fact that intelligent theory is more religious than secular. All in all, despite the critics, I still stand with the position that intelligent design is an ideal scientific theory (Dawkins 26). Works cited Dawkins, Richard [zoologist and Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University], "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.1 Read More