Evolution is Compatible with Intelligent Design

It should be noted that proponents of intelligent design argue that the scientific model of evolution, based on the natural selection theory is insufficient to explain the origin, complexity and diversity of life and the universe, which adapted for living creatures by chance. In turn, evolution is described by scientists as a systematic process, oriented and based on the selection, which works on variability generated by essentially random processes.

Proponents of intelligent design do not take part in publicly explicit concerning the identity or the creators or the means, used to design and then create life, but have the support of most literal reading of the Bible and protected from Christian fundamentalist institutions. It is essential to note that intelligent design mainly refers to following arguments:

 The fine-tuned universe. One of the arguments of proponents of intelligent design, which includes additional elements of biology and asserts that we live in a fine-tuned universe, with many features that make life possible and can not be attributed to chance. These features include the values of physical constants (the value of nuclear interactions) and many others. Proponents of this model argue that if any of these values were slightly different, the universe would be dramatically different, making impossible the existence of many chemical elements and characteristics the universe such as galaxies. So, for life to exist, we need the presence of an intelligent designer to ensure that the conditions were present at the time producing the result that the designer had intended.

The scientific community has responded almost unanimously that it is not possible to verify this argument, which can only be based on speculation.
 The irreducible complexity. Formulated by biochemist M. J. Behe in terms of irreducible biochemical complexity. Behe uses the mousetrap as an example to illustrate the concept. A mousetrap is composed of several interacting parts – the base, the trap spring, the hammer – they must all be in place for the mousetrap to work. By eliminating one of them, the object is no longer functional. The intelligent design says that natural selection could not create irreducibly complex systems, because the selection function is then applied to the complex system, which is already armed. This is a reprint of an argument against Darwinism used since ancient times, for example with regard to the complexity of the eye. Behe has tried to renew with respect to functional macromolecular aggregates as the bacterial flagellum. He argues that the complexity of a structure of this type, where there is no redundancy, is irreducible, because the alteration of either party completely destroys the functionality of the whole. He argues that this fact disqualifies natural selection (the essential mechanism of evolution according Darwin).

 The specified complexity. The concept of specified complexity in intelligent design was developed by the mathematician, philosopher and theologian William Dembski. Dembski says that when something has specified complexity, it was produced by an intelligent cause rather than by the product of a natural process. To understand the concept he proposes the following examples: “A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence chosen at random letters is complex but not specific. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specific”. Dembski defines complex specified information as anything that has less than one chance in 10150 cases of occurring spontaneously.

 Wedge strategy. The Discovery Institute presented this strategy through a manifesto known as the Wedge document, which describes a broad social, political and academic agenda, whose ultimate goal would be to try to reverse an alleged stifling materialistic worldview to defeat scientific materialism, that this organization would be represented according to the teaching of biological evolution, and replace it with a supposed science on religious belief, as stated in Intelligent Design: An Ambiguous Assault on Evolution.

Moreover, it should be mentioned that the arguments of proponents of intelligent design are not necessarily associated with the concept of God, although in some cases also assigned the religions characteristics usually associated with God. Thus, the main proponents of intelligent design have argued similarly against his followers, who believe that the designer is the God. Some of them, who favor is the existence of a designer explained that there is intelligence behind any achievement that human industry produces, as well as the cell complex structures, and the atom, structures and functioning order and complexity, must have been equally produced by someone. Similarly, as required training and intelligence to legislate human laws, intelligence is necessary to establish the complex laws, governing the universe observed by astrophysicists, biochemists, engineers and other scientists. Another argument is that without intelligence, artists, craftsmen and designers in different fields can not produce or create their work. Therefore, the designer of life must have an intelligence superior to human intelligence to produce structures for life that can not be reproduced in the laboratory by intelligent human beings, as described in Evolution Shares a Desk With Intelligent Design.

However, the critics go beyond these arguments of intelligent design and declare that it has not real scientific basis. Also, some critics argue that existing evidence makes the hypothesis of a designer regardless of their position in the world of science. For example, Jerry Coyne from the University of Chicago declared that intelligent design would give us a way to produce vitamin C and then destroy it by disabling one of their enzymes and why not ranked reptiles, mammals, amphibians and freshwater fish on isolated islands with a suitable environment for these species. Coyne also notes that the fact that the flora and fauna of these islands is very similar to the nearby mainland, even when their environment is very different, there are evidence that species were not placed there by a designer. In turn, the supporters of intelligent design have argued ignorance of the motives of the designer. For example, Behe wrote that in Darwin’s “black box” simply does not have ability to understand the motivations of the designer, so that we can not answer these questions definitively. Designs with such defect could have been included by the designer for artistic reasons, or for a purpose not yet understood or other reasons. Coyne responds that in view of the evidence that the designer as a cosmic entity have designed everything to look like if it had been created as a result of a process of evolution. Other followers of the movement say that perhaps the designers use to address characteristics of the universe evolution, and sculpt the life that originally was planted. Thus, critics suggest that by requiring intelligent design argument from ignorance of the intentions of the designer, actually this fact is presented only as a form of fallacy, or a simple religious belief, as stated in Are Evolution and Intelligent Design Compatible?