When discussing creation as God’s general providence, I briefly discussed Intelligent Design (ID). Here, I would like to delve further into the topic. Intelligent Design is the concept that certain features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process like natural selection.
It is important to note that Intelligent Design does not directly oppose evolution in the strictest sense. It acknowledges that every living creature shares a common ancestor and that complexity emerges from simpler systems over time.
Supporters of ID argue that it should be considered a scientific approach because it utilizes the same methods as traditional science. They believe that by applying scientific principles, ID provides a valid explanation for the observed features of the natural world. While ID has gained support from some prominent scientists, it is important to note that the majority of scientists do not agree with this viewpoint. This leads us to the question: do we have a scientific criterion to determine whether a theory is truly scientific?
As a physics major in the field of surface science, I’ve been exposed to the interdisciplinary nature of the field, which often incorporates elements of chemistry. During my time in graduate school, I occasionally attended seminars in the neighboring chemistry department. Interestingly, there were two renowned professors within that department who held a strong animosity toward each other and considered each other’s research to be fundamentally flawed. This raises the question: why do two equally distinguished scientists specializing in similar subjects hold such divergent perspectives?
When I was in grad school, there was a humorous tradition among some of my fellow Ph.D. students where we would jokingly interpret the acronym “Ph.D.” as “Permanent Head Damage” instead of its actual meaning, “Doctor of Philosophy.”
As a Doctor of Philosophy, I did not attend any lectures throughout my Ph.D. journey, and I believe the same holds true for approximately 99% of Ph.D. holders. Therefore, it is incorrect to assume that all individuals with a Ph.D. are philosophers. Hence using the philosophy of science to argue for intelligent design will yield no satisfactory answer.
As mentioned earlier, I am an experimental physicist, and I often approach things from a practical standpoint. Let’s set aside the heated debate regarding whether Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific concept and instead shift our attention to the implications of ID.
Intelligent design can be seen as a modern interpretation of natural theology. One of the arguments of natural theology is the teleological argument, also known as the design argument, which is a philosophical argument pointing to the existence of God based on observations of order and purpose in the natural world. Intelligent design blending philosophical ideas with scientific language. It incorporates concepts such as irreducible complexity, which proposes that complex systems require all parts to be present and functioning correctly, with no small incremental steps for their creation. According to this perspective, some complex systems could not have arisen through random mutations alone thus suggesting the involvement of an intelligent designer. This designer is often referred to as God by proponents of ID.
I greatly admire the ability of my Ph.D. supervisor to discern flawed scientific theories despite having limited information. He consistently challenges us to consider the meaning of certain parameters and their connection to the real world. A key characteristic of a solid scientific theory is its possession of “good explanation power.” This refers to its ability to encompass a broad range of empirical data, make accurate predictions, and offer deeper insights into the underlying mechanisms or principles at play.
In the field of physics, there exists a profound belief that nature is characterized by beauty, simplicity, and elegance. Paul Dirac, one of the pioneers of quantum physics, famously stated that “A theory with mathematical beauty is more likely to be correct than an ugly one that fits some experimental data.”
However, it’s important to note that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some individuals find solace in the concept of a designer or creator God, perceiving it as an elegant solution that resolves both scientific and philosophical quandaries. This perspective suggests that evolution through random mutations, with its perceived low probability, is an ugly theory that only partially fits experimental data. Conversely, others find beauty in the idea of random mutation without the need for a designer or creator, appreciating its simplicity and reduced complexity.
Returning to the practical question of whether Intelligent Design can be considered a scientific study, I think the answer is yes, as it employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences. But is it good science? I don’t think so. The goal of science is to discover and gain knowledge about the natural world and the workings of the universe. Ultimately, we can utilize this knowledge to make new predictions that can be falsifiable. However, for ID, the primary aim is to convince people that the world is intricately designed, suggesting the existence of a designer. No new interaction of God with the universe can be predicted in the endeavor.
If we’re being completely honest, it becomes clear that the likelihood of life emerging solely through random mutations is extremely low. The origin of life is a complex scientific inquiry that is still being actively explored. In fact, a great number of scientists believe that there is a higher being, so a lot of them just don’t believe in a personal God. Most people don’t have a very good concept of every big or very small number. Even if ID can prove that the probability of such an unlike event future is reduced by millions of times, it is unlikely to change anyone’s mind.
Intelligent design is susceptible to falling into the “God of the Gaps” fallacy, where we use the scientific gaps in knowledge as proof or evidence of God’s existence. If a simple scientific explanation is eventually discovered for what is currently attributed to intelligent design, people will abandon the idea of God’s involvement.
While the probability of an irreducible-complex system arising naturally through a random process is extremely low, I believe God is faithful to the physical laws He created. He didn’t wave His magic wand to create the irreducible-complex systems from thin air, and there is a pathway that allows them to evolute naturally. So eventually, scientists will find the pathway. In fact, today, there is some empirical evidence suggesting that some commonly cited examples of irreducible complexity can occur naturally.
Some supporters of Intelligent Design avoid explicitly attributing the “designer” to God, to avoid being associated with creationism. They believe that the designer’s role ends with the initial design and that a God who simply designs the universe and lets it unfold without further involvement is not worthy of worship.
In my previous article, “Creation as God’s general providence,” I argued that we should perceive God as a provider rather than just a designer. A provider God has the ability to bring together the necessary conditions and elements in a way that can accelerate and make seemingly impossible events possible.
In Genesis 22:14, God is referred to as Jehovah Jireh, which means “The LORD provides.” This emphasizes that God is not a passive deity who allows random events to dictate everything without any guidance. Instead, God ensures that circumstances are in place to prevent things from spiraling out of control while still allowing for the emergence of complex systems with free will.
Human history is an ongoing process, constantly evolving with new developments. In this context, God can be likened to a caring parent who both provides for us and guides us to stay on the right path.
Our God is not just some being who provides and guides the process of evolution; He is actively involved in guiding our daily lives. He cares deeply about us. In Hebrew, God is also known as El Roi, which means “the God who sees me.” This signifies that He is aware of all our suffering and even became human to experience and understand our pain.
Unlike the concept of intelligent design, my aim is not to present scientific evidence for the existence of God. Instead, by recognizing God as a caring provider, we can gain insights into His nature and foster conversations between science and religion. It is important to communicate the message of the gospel to non-believers using language and concepts that they can understand.
While ID may not be widely accepted as a robust scientific discipline, it can still be seen as a subject worthy of study and contemplation. Not everything needs to be labeled as science to have value and merit in our pursuit of knowledge and understanding.
For instance, history is not considered a science in the same way as physics or biology, but it is unquestionably a valuable field of study. Exploring historical events, cultures, and the actions of individuals can provide valuable insights into the development of societies and help us comprehend the present through the lens of the past.
Similarly, studying and contemplating ID can be seen as a means of deepening one’s faith and exploring the philosophical and theological implications of our existence. Understanding how the concept of a designer or God relates to the universe’s creation can contribute to a broader understanding of faith and spirituality.