Intelligent Designer - Research Paper Sample

Introduction

Scientific Design, as defined by its proponents, underscores the notion that some universal features and living things can be best explained by the cause of intelligence, which is believed to be God. It underlies a pseudoscientific set of beliefs based on the notion of the complexity of life on earth that can neither be explained by evolution nor scientific theory, thereby having a designation of a supernatural entity. However, some researchers have attempted to portray Intelligent Design as a fledging scientific theory that is yet to be embraced by science. Simultaneously, detractors assert that Intelligent Design is only but creationism in disguise.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Vast scientific theories acknowledge the existence of an intelligent designer, God, since the question of God's presence is outside the realms of science, making evolution silent on it. Throughout his life, Charles Darwin, the evolution theorist, openly wondered about the existence of a supreme designer, albeit kept such questions separate from his scientific work. Other scientists like Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller also hold personal religious beliefs. However, God's faith and Accepting evolution are not mutually exclusive; hence, the evidence from the scientific view does not support an intelligent designer's existence. Intelligent Design can, therefore, not be considered as a scientific theory following its sufficient explanatory and predictive power like science, as it merely says that some complicated things could not have had natural occurrences.

Scientific Theory

For a theory to be supported as a scientific theory, it has to be testable and based on shreds of evidence that can be observed, coupled with the abilities of making predictions regarding the natural occurrences that can be subsequently be tested through scientific experimentations. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, neither makes predictions nor can be scrutinized using scientific methods. Despite the proponents of brilliant design couch of their views on scientific terms' realms, their assertion of intelligent Design having support from sci9entific evidence is false. Intelligent Design is far from a scientific phenomenon, albeit its ideals confers with the natural world phenomena. The research in Intelligent Designer does not bear any scientific hallmarks. Despite the proponents of Intelligent Design making testable and refuted claims related to evolution theory, it is not testable; hence, it would never be validated by the leading scientific methods that encompass testing ideas against natural world evidence.

Moreover, scientific evidence does not support the existence of intelligent Design since the latter is nothing but mere creationism in disguise. Intelligent Design encompasses flowed methods and theories that are false. It critically combines new arguments from biological and mathematical research emblems a larger methodological flaw that scientific evidence would never support (Collinsworth, 2010). Hence it would be a contrived dualism in reasoning that all scientific evidence that has failed to support the theory of evolution is automatically scientific evidence that supports the alternative notion, which is Intelligent Design. Therefore, for intelligent Design to be scientifically valid, it has to encompass a vast range of observations, facts, references that can be explained in detail, coupled with having the ability to make predictions on the outcomes of future observations and experiments.

Alternative Evolutionary Theory

Intelligent Design is a less comprehensive than alternative evolutionary theory as mutation has a detailed process like natural selection, adaptation and modification, contrary to Intelligent Design, which does not offer a fair design process or the designer. Also, the concept of irreducible complexity underlined in Intelligent Design is something to scientists strongly object.Scientists object is based on the mischaracterization of biological mutation as a linear process involving only the addition of parts instead of dynamic proceeds that can be rearranged, reshaped or alter the existence of elements (Collinsworth, 2010). According to scientific evidence, systems that need to be fully formed to serve their current function might have developed from earlier forms that did the same position.

Similarly, the ID, despite its notion of explaining the natural world, it fails to offer valid explanations like it explains the existence of one type of bacteria flagellum. Still, it does not explain how the designer may have constructed the bacteria. Also, the ID does not have testable ideas like in science. It does not define who the designer is or how the designer operates hence failing to generate specific expectations to determine whether its premises are correct or incorrect. Additionally, according to Understanding Science (2020), ID lacks pieces of evidence testable to the idea, albeit its proponents have asserted testable claims discrediting evolution with the mechanisms for ID designs. However, such claims have been tested and refuted scientifically like the claim that the components of bacterial flagella cannot function independently without the other is a hoax. Finally, ID does not have documented research cases that contribute to new scientific discovery as it only repeats itself and is focused on critiquing evolutionary explanations; hence, there is no scientific evidence that supports the existence of the intelligent designer.

Scientific Evidence

According to Nova Newsletter (2007), the proponents of scientific evidence supporting the intelligent designer's existence, on the other hand, assert that the concept is indeed true and back sit with the evolutionary literature of more massive in evolution. As purported by ID proponents, the Darwinian theory of evolution did not prove that there is no God but only proves that there is no need for God's participation in creation. As per Nova Newsletter (2007), if the Darwinian theory is correct, then to them, nature has the creative power which needs to produce plants, animals, and people. They further argue that since scientific research could not provide a full explanation of how life was created, then there was a need for intelligent Design to be involved in some way. They add that the hypothesis of Intelligent Design, just like science, can be tested using Darwinian evolution theory. As per Allan Rex Sandage, the world's greatest observational cosmologist, on his input on the big bang theory, he asserted that the big bang theory was a supernatural event that would never be explained in the realm of physics (Strobel, 2009). He added that science would only explain the initial occurrence of the big bang theory but would never explain its cause

Similarly, according to Sondage, the emergence of matter, space, energy, and time could only be explained in the spheres of transcendence, concluding that the worlds are much more complicated than can be explained by science alone acknowledgement of the intelligent designer (Strobel, 2009). Sandage further explains ed that it was only through the supernatural that he could understand the mystery existence. Similarly, another scientist, Dean Kenyon, a biophysicist from San Francisco State University, drew an evidential conclusion that scientific evidence supports an intelligent designer's presence. Kenyon asserted that following the cell's intense molecular complexity, the DNA's information-bearing properties, the best evidence pointed towards a designer of life, God. Sandage, therefore, concluded that most scientists are currently driven full faith by their very own works (Strobel, 2009). Another scientific evidence supporting a supernatural designer's existence is the notion that the origin of life, the source of reality and the human consciousness nature have shortcomings in scientific explanations hence the need for intelligent design explanations. Therefore, it is for those reasons, among others, that provide concrete proof that most powerful scientific findings have form support from God's belief.

Conclusion

However, the arguments for scientific evidence supporting an intelligent creator's existence can be disputed because Intelligent Design advocates offer vast views casting doubts on the evolutionary theory. Such statements are only aimed at promoting the intelligent Design itself. Additionally, scientists assert that while intelligent Design breaks new grounds, it often falls back on long-debunked disputes stemming from creation science (Collinsworth, 2010). An instance is their claims that evolution can only happen within species or their exaggerated emphasis on the fossil records' gaps. Finally, Proponents of ID have failed to agree among themselves on the biological phenomena used to design the theory, making it amount to nothing but rather a notion of pointing holes in evolution and responding to one word, Design. Unless the advocates of ID fill the details, there is no scientific evidence encompassing intelligent Design and making future predictions that would validate the smart designer's existence.

References

Collinsworth, B. (2010, November 16). The flaws in intelligent design. Center for American Progress.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/news/2006/04/10/1934/the-flaws-in-intelligent-design/

Nova Newsletter. (2007, October 1). Defending intelligent design. PBS: Public Broadcasting Service.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/defense-intelligent-design/

Strobel, L. (2009). The case for a creator: A journalist investigates scientific evidence that points toward god. Zondervan.

Understanding Science. (2020). Intelligent design: Is it scientific?
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/id_checklist.