This article addresses the debate between creationism, evolution, and intelligent design in the context of human origins, exploring the strengths and limitations of each theory. While evolutionary theory seeks to empirically explain natural phenomena, intelligent design argues that the complexity of life and the order of the universe cannot be explained by chance.
Humans have always wondered about their origins. These questions about the mysteries of the universe and the meaning of human existence have been asked by various cultures and civilizations. Ancient religions and philosophies attempted to interpret the origins of the world and the birth of life by proposing various hypotheses, and myths and legends quenched this thirst. These early attempts were often explained through belief and symbolism rather than concrete evidence, but they served as important stepping stones for people to explore the origins of humanity throughout the ages. Gradually, as civilization developed and humans became more inclined to understand the world through observation and analysis, various theories were formed.
For a particularly long time, creationism was considered the only plausible approach to human origins. Creationism holds that the birth of humans and the universe was planned and executed by some transcendent being, and different cultures have told different versions of this creation story. In ancient Egypt, the sun god Ra was believed to have created the world, and in Mesopotamian civilizations, the gods were thought to rule over the world. These creation stories, which found their way into religious scripture and folklore, had a profound effect on the way people thought, and are still the basis of faith and belief for many people today.
In the 17th century, however, the authority of religion began to erode as the Reformation and the Enlightenment swept across Europe. As critical thinking about religion became increasingly widespread, people increasingly sought to understand nature and humans through a scientific approach, rather than in terms of transcendent entities. During this period, Darwin published ‘ On the Origin of Species,’ and ‘evolutionary theory’ replaced ‘creationism’ as the central theory explaining the origins of biology. As evolutionary theory began to be accepted by many people, creationism, which had long been considered an article of faith by humans, lost its power. Nevertheless, the debate between religiously based creationism and scientifically based evolutionary theory remains a big one, and people wonder which is the only theory that can explain the origins of humanity.
To put things in perspective, evolutionary theory is based on the observation of natural phenomena to explain how species have changed and adapted. When scientists study natural phenomena, they are confronted with mysterious situations and the greatness of natural laws, and they begin to accept the limitations of the positivist approach. They wonder where such an ordered world and the laws that describe it come from. In particular, the question of how life has evolved in a lawful way continues to be explored by scientists. They have tried to answer these questions by looking to nature itself, assuming that living things have evolved and will continue to evolve according to the laws that govern the natural world. However, this did not explain the origin of the laws themselves. This is still considered a limitation of positivist science.
To overcome this limitation, William Dembski proposed the theory of intelligent design. This theory states that these laws could not exist without a transcendent being that designed the world. Although intelligent design doesn’t explain all the laws in science, it does provide an alternative explanation for the transcendent part of evolutionary theory. One of Dembski’s arguments in favor of intelligent design is irreducible complexity. This refers to the property of a system whose parts combine to perform a fundamental function, but which cannot perform that function without any one part (Behe, 1997). An example is a mousetrap. A mousetrap consists of a support, a hammer, a spring, a clasp, and a bar, and if any of these parts are missing, it cannot function properly. Contrast this with the concept of incremental evolution in evolutionary theory.
According to evolutionary theory, the current system must have been an imperfect system in the past. However, an incomplete system cannot function properly and therefore cannot fully fulfill the functions of life. Irreducible complexity makes logical sense in this regard. Another rationale for intelligent design is a “finely tuned universe”. It states that life as we know it could not exist without the intention of a designer. In order for life to exist in the universe, many conditions are required, most of which are basic physical constants and forces, and they have a very narrow range. In other words, the probability of Earth’s ecosystems existing is mathematically very low, so even the slightest change in their values would prevent life from existing. It is quite convincing to argue that the designer made these fine-tuning adjustments on purpose.
Of course, there are other arguments, such as the “clockwork argument” and “obvious complexity,” which also claim that the origin and development of life cannot be explained without the intention of a designer. Intelligent design refutes the theory of evolution by asking these philosophical questions. Evolutionary theory, which is based on positivism, also tries to refute intelligent design scientifically. However, as limited as the theory of evolution is in explaining nature, we cannot ignore the persuasive power of intelligent design. William Hopkins had this to say about the theory of evolution.
“It is based on a priori considerations, not on factual evidence, and it is based on a limited view instead of a broad view of the physical causes and phenomena that constitute what we call nature.”
Darwin’s “Origin of Species” is also likely to be wrong because it was a hypothesis test based on observation, not a derivation of all the laws of nature, and is limited to speculation. Because of these limitations, current research is focused on finding conclusive evidence that can turn speculation into certainty. During the Renaissance and Newtonian period, the theory evolved into positivism and agnosticism. Agnosticism is the philosophy that it’s impossible for humans to recognize the nature of things, so positivist theories focused on explaining scientific phenomena.
Current science is excellent at applying natural laws to life and explaining phenomena, but it is limited in its ability to answer questions about the existence of the laws themselves. In light of these facts, it may be natural to argue that we need a new science that goes beyond positivistic science. The theory of intelligent design could be one such theory that could open up new horizons in science. Although the theory of intelligent design itself started from a position of doubting the theory of evolution, it does not make claims based on actual results, only on logical development and reasoning. When reading Intelligent Design, it is difficult to tell whether it is science, philosophy, or religion with scientific theories.
In the end, intelligent design theory has only logic and reasoning for its claims, but it has not produced any experimental results. This makes it a fundamentalist science that does not resonate with the general public, but it is not lacking in tools to open up new scientific horizons and explain the nature of things.
