Given the recent media attention to intelligent design, it is important to critically evaluate the merits of this idea from a scientific viewpoint. Intelligent design holds that observable evidence, such as the complexity of organisms, supports the conclusion that the world was created by an intelligent agent. This is based upon the assumption that random mutation cannot account for complex systems like a bird's lung or a flagella of a unicellular organism. Although intelligent design is presented as a scientific theory, it is not one because it cannot be tested.
At the very core of science is the scientific method, where one observes phenomena, makes a hypothesis, tests that hypothesis and draws conclusions supported by evidence. This empirical method is fundamental to the certainty that can ascribe claims derived by scientific investigation. Intelligent design violates the scientific method. It is not falsifiable; there is no experiment that one can conduct to assess the validity of intelligent design. Further, there is no way to test intelligent design because it makes no positive claims.
Theories must have predictive power to provide a projected outcome given a certain set of characteristics. There are no such predictions offered by intelligent design. Thus, intelligent design cannot be considered a scientific theory because it has no testable assertions. In stark contrast, the current theory of evolution yields predictions that can be tested in populations. Therefore, the validity of the theory can be ascertained through the collection of data qualifying it as such. This is important because individuals often confuse the idea of scientific theory, which has very strict conditions, and the colloquial use of the theory, which is akin to conjecture.
It is worth noting that the assertion that the complexity of the world can only be explained by an intelligent creator is hardly original. The argument is most notably traced back to William Paley, a 19th century theologian, and is a philosophical, not a scientific argument. This distinction is justified by the fact that quantifiable evidence is not being used to support intelligent design, but rather abstract reasoning.
Intelligent design now is used simply as a foil to the theory of evolution, attempting to disprove evolution via philosophical means. One such example would be the claim that the theory of evolution cannot explain the origin of complex features within organisms.
This challenge to the explanatory power of the theory of evolution was addressed by a 2003 paper in Nature by Lenski et al. In a unique approach, Lenski et al. used computer modeling to create digital organisms capable of replication, mutation, competition and evolution. The opportunity to replicate was constrained by energy as obtained via performance of logical operations.
The more complex the operation performed, the more energy that was acquired and thus the greater opportunity for replication. Complex logical operations were built upon more simple logical operations conferring advantage. Considering that mutation was a random event, increased replication resulted in an increased chance of mutation. The results of this simulation were the development of digital organisms capable of the most complex operations demonstrating a possible mechanism for the development of complex functions via selection. This clearly refutes the idea that incremental change is not a possible mechanism to create complex functions.
In addition, deleterious mutations were shown to be a part of the development of complex functions, further refuting irreducible complexity: that a complex system cannot be created by incremental or deleterious change and cannot function without all of its component parts.
This type of investigation provides a possible explanation of complex traits in organisms, responding to the criticisms of intelligent design. Although the theory of evolution tends to have a special status in biology, it is clear that it is still being treated with a skeptical eye. Those who pursue intelligent design proclaim themselves simply to be seeking the truth, but it is clear that they have little interest in empirically-verified, scientific assertions and often are merely trying to disguise a religious agenda under the pretense of "science."
Michael McDuffie can be reached at mm9kn@virginia.edu.
Read More
Two senior U.Va. Health leaders quietly take new jobs without formal announcement
By Ford McCracken | YesterdayKibbe’s departure marks the end of an ongoing battle between U.Va. Health employees and their senior leadership.
Letter from 12 deans to Board of Visitors goes unanswered for almost two weeks
By Naima Sawaya | YesterdayAt the time of publication, the academic deans had received no response from the Board regarding their offer to meet with the Board “as soon as possible.”
Sen. Tim Kaine speaks to U.Va. students, discusses Ryan resignation and more
By Grace Traxler | 2 days agoIn an informal Q&A session, audience members asked about threats to federal research, the future of diversity, equity and inclusion at the University, potential shifts in the Democratic Party and more.
