The issue of creation has been surrounded by arguments and counterarguments. Numerous theories have been put forward in an attempt to explain the existence of the universe, , such as the creation theory, evolution theory and intelligent philosophy theory. The intelligent theory is debatable and seems to support the creation theory, although not comprehensively. The theory argues that the universe was created due to an intelligent approach through a teleological order. It further complements the creation theory by supporting the presence of a designer of the universe who according to the creation theory is God. The theory supports the existence of a Christian God and excludes all other known religions. Though not mentioned directly, the insinuations made by the proponents of the theory flame the intervention in such a way that only God would. The debate between those who believe in this theory and those who believe in the evolution theory is a heated one. Therefore, one needs to understand both theories to decide which of them to believe in.
The intelligence theory believes in a Christian God as the designer of the universe and all things in it. The theory seems to outweigh the evolution theory in terms of acceptability. The issue of contention has been the designer of the universe, for people tend to believe that some things cannot happen without the control of a supernatural being. The arguments have been forwarded and supported with facts by scholars on both sides, but the intelligent theory tends to take an upper hand.
The intelligent theory of the existence of the universe tries to explain the creationism of the universe in a way that contradicts the evolution theory. Put forward by the Discovery Institute, it supports the creation theory but in a bigger and wider context. The theory suggests that an act of creation occurred through a guided principle and methodology, rather than through the natural selection method (Cohen 82). The theory accepts the existence of the traditional God in the creation theory, which in this case is the Christian God. The theory, however, distances itself from the religious approach by arguing that the facts surrounding it are more scientifically proved.
The intelligence theory of existence is in all terms accepted in most circles as compared to the evolution theory. The Islamic conferences in the Middle Eat have known to promote this theory in saying it is more real and rational. The evolution is seen as an imagination and creation of the mind of a single person. In real terms, the intelligence theory is observed as the combination of rational minds to come up with a substantial argument. For most people who accept the intelligence theory argue that it goes far ahead to give the reason of why the things and occurrences in nature have accurate achievements over time and in a repeated manner. Although viewed as religious approach and prohibited from teaching in schools along the United States, it sounds more real and highly acceptable.
The theory puts the theistic theory in a wider context by substantiating the existence of God in a scientifically sensitive manner. The approach justifies the existence of a supernatural being that controls nature and its happenings. The arguments include the issues of irreducible complex and the specified complex. Scientists who believe in the evolution theory are strongly opposed to the theory. They argue that the policy of natural selection is real and scientifically proved and cannot be withdrawn. In an attempt to refute the argument, they have rejected any extension to the scientific facts and sited flaws in the presented facts. In the scientific circles, it has been described as pseudoscience with a wider religious approach rather than scientific. The intelligence theory was advocated by a group of American scholars who have tried to bring to an end the controversy that exists between the creation and evolution theory. This group of scholars is known to have gone to the federal court in 1989 to fight against the teaching of religious education in schools for its advocacy of the creation theory (Kainz 30). The group argued that this was tantamount to joining the church and state. The first work on the theory was published in 1989 was called Of Pandes and the People and it. a biology text book intended to be used in high schools to teach on the existence of the universe. In 2005, the theory was rejected as unfit due to its religious approach. In a court ruling, the theory was said to be a breach of the constitution if adopted in school curricula. This happened despite the support it got from the Discovery Institute and the National Centre for Science and Culture.
Thomas Aquinas was the first to put forward the theory in the 13th century. He argued that all the species in the universe are controlled by some supernatural force. He set the pace by introducing God as the unseen instructor responsible for the behavior of the universe. In 1802, William Paley explained the concept by using the watchmaker analogy in defining time and timely discipline of nature. He explained the perfect nature of the supernatural force and control over the universe. This influenced the opinion of many scientists who had for long taken the existence of God for granted and changed their reasoning and perception (Gordon 63). Charles Darwin tried to dissuade the scientists by explaining the problem of evil and its poor design through the natural science of selection. The effects of the theory were felt worldwide and it had been accepted in some quarters. The use of the irreducible complexity and specified complexity made it acceptable.
The concept was first put forward by Michael Behe in Pandas and the People published in 1993 and later in Darwin’s Black Book published in 1996. He described the term as a uncomplicated system comprised of correlated units that bring functionality and coordination. He described the units as highly dependent on each other and the possible malfunction of the system in case of isolation of any single unit. To illustrate the concept, he used the example of a mousetrap in which all parts worked in coordination until one was missing.
He opposed the natural selection theory as one that would not lead to formation of an irreducible complex system, as the process would not be so accurate. He argued that for the natural selection to occur, there had to be a guiding force. According to Behe, the supernatural force was God; hence, the existence of God was substantiated.
The opponents of the theory criticized it as one that lacked facts. They argued that the natural selection theory had conclusively shown that nature eliminated factors that did not fit in and triggered adaptation by excluding rather than adding. The developer of the approach had accepted having used unfounded facts and rationale.
The approach centers around the transmission of messages in DNA proteins. DNA proteins are responsible for transmitting genetic information from parents to offspring. The information transmitted determines the character of offspring in relation to parents. The specified complexity approach was put forward by Charles Thaxton in 1986. He argued that genetic information could not be coordinated by natural means but required some intelligence and guidance to achieve such a high accuracy. The word ’guidance’ was chosen to denote the existence of a supreme being. The theory was further strengthened by William Dembski in 1990. He used the example of a sentence to illustrate the occurrence of complexity from simplicity. According to him, a word is simple when it is not in a sentence. However, when words are made into a sentence, they automatically form a complex structure. To him, this happens without the conscience of the sentence creator. He argued that the intelligence of the sentence maker is required. Through this, he argued, a single structure in life is comprehensible, but when they are joined together, they form a complex system. He stated that for this to happen, intelligence of a supernatural being is required. Dembski’s arguments on the chances of complex structure occurring naturally call into question the evolution theory. Dembski states it clearly that Complex Specific Information has a chance of less 1 or10^150 to occur. This discredits the evolution theory that claims that all organisms evolve in a similar manner within a specific time.
The shapes and patterns of organisms are similar and descriptive in similar manner over years. The repeat occurrences of factors are not real and the evolution theory sounds exaggerated. In real terms, an occurrence just like in construction requires an intelligent mind in control fact that in all phases of the evolution theory, there is survival of both the female and the male species of every organism. This accuracy can be conquered with as it suggests saying of the factors to bring similarity and resemblance. Taking an example of construction of houses, it would not be possible to have a coincidence where different individuals build houses with similar characteristics without coordination similar way, it won’t be possible for organisms in different parts of the world will have similar characteristics without involvement of an intelligent mind.
The Evolution Theory
The evolution theory was put forward by Charles Darwin in the early 13th century. It attempted to explain the origin of the earth and its phenomenon by arguing that all living organisms came to be through a natural process of evolution and development. According to Darwin, all organisms developed from tiny cells to the complex systems that they are today. The theory further argues that organisms had to cope with the evolving universe and its physical characteristics, such as clearing bush land, drying swamps and changing vegetation. He advocated the survival of the fittest theory according to which only the strongest organisms survived while the weaker ones became extinct. He argued that the remnants had to evolve to new adaptable characters to fit in the environment. The theory is disputable due to its presentation gaps and lack of flow in some instances. It further fails to explain the existence of some complexities and occurrences, but rather assumes its facts.
Intelligence Design vs Evolution
The debate between the proponents of both theories is heated and hostile. It has seen the two warring sides move to courts, with each trying to prove the other wrong. The two groups have tried to outdo each other by trying to gain favors from the general community. The evolution theory put forward by Charles Darwin is widely accepted in the science communities, while the intelligence design and creation theory are favored in the religious circles. Several facts have been put forward by each group in a bid to prove its theory as right and acceptable.
The structures of the most animals and plants show a similar trend in shape and appearance. They have definite characteristics that allow easy classification through physical observation. For example, there is a notable similarity in the leaves, branches and roots. Similarly, the shapes of different physical structures are same and equal in animals (Carol 217). This type of occurrence is supported by evolution theory proponents due to gene transfer and evolution. However, it is doubtful how accurate the evolution process should be to give such an exact outcome. The question can be considered in relation to the existence of a similar design in organisms of similar species. Intelligence philosophy supporters view this as the work of an agent directing this cause. There is not enough evidence to prove genetic evolution, and the argument culminates in the existence of a guiding principle that in this case is a supreme being.
The accuracy observed is high recurrent and repeatedly occurs. This in real and practical terms is not possible in the terms proposed in the evolution theory. A good example of counter attack against the evolution theory and in favor of the intelligence approach is the fact that in all phases of the evolution theory, there is survival of both the female and the male species of every organism. This accuracy can be conquered with as it suggests saying that the evolution is natural. No terms of a similar perspective are possible.
The making of some structures in a step wise design lacks rationale and capacity to withstand rational reason. Some structures, such as the human eye, is made up of several coordinating units to bring purpose and function. Removal or absence of any of the parts would be interpreted as a non-functional organ. This automatically disqualifies the evolution theory that suggests that evolution was a step-by-step process (William Paley 1802). It also reinforces arguments put forward by intelligence philosophy proponents that the process was controlled by a supernatural being (Charles Thaxton 1984). This makes the process more acceptable and real in practical terms.
The appearance of the embryo is similar in different organisms of the same class. However, with the development of the same, definite differences are observed and recognized as real beyond any doubt. A telling example is humans and monkeys. The embryos of the two organisms are characteristically equivalent, but the grownups are different. The evolution theory tends to explain this in different terms by citing evolutionary and ancestral characteristics. However, the explanation lacks physical authenticity and palatability. The intelligence theory at this point introduces the essence and mentality of a supernatural being that controls the occurrence and ensures conformity and accuracy.
The DNA strand is a complex structure with several interdependent features. The strand is responsible for the transfer of genetic information from parents to siblings. However, the accuracy of the transfer is questionable and doubtful (Fuller 25). In the specified complex approach, the intelligence philosophy theorem tries to question the evolution theory for failing to give an opportunity for mistaken establishment of the DNA functioning. Proponents of the intelligence philosophy argue that DNA strands need an intelligence guidance to ensure that they perform their intended function. Intelligence comes from a supreme being who intervenes in a discrete way. This ensures that the transmission made achieves the intended design and shape as intended by the anonymous designer. To proponents of the intelligence philosophy, this ensures continuity of the design in accordance with the will and wish of the supreme being.
Description of the anonymous designer as perfect also tends to make some sense to those who view the intelligence theory as more viable compared to the evolution theory. The evolution theory argues that different structures found on Earth are there because they were able to survive in that particular environment. In such instances, the theory argues that in some instances, such as islands, no single organism was able to survive although the conditions were right. This clearly creates doubt in the viability of the argument. The intelligence theory in this regard gives a reason that is viable in rationale. It also ensures that perfect nature and capacity to design is observed. The Supreme Being made the universe appear as he liked and within his mental capacity. Taking into consideration that design is a state of mind, the designer of the earth had all freedom to place whatever he wanted to and wherever he thought was appropriate, irrespective of climatic and conditional suitability.
The fact that the intelligence philosophy distances itself from the creation theory but gives it some considerations makes it more viable and adaptable. In a more specific and categorical approach, the theory balances between the creation and evolution theory. This shows its willingness to accommodate the two theories by disintegrating their unacceptable and resurrecting the most acceptable, thus making it one (Soames 101). This gives it to more credibility, unlike the evolution theory, which is inflexible and resistant to change and correction. The scientific research carried out on the latter is barely enough, while the rational analysis of the intelligence philosophy is substantial and highly acceptable.
Comparison of the two existential approaches reveals disparities in both instances. As regards the evolution theory, the deficiency is evident despite multiple scientific experiments carried out. The flaws of some occurrences in terms of time measure and accuracy put the cloud of doubt over the theory. The intelligence design is not spared in this critical analysis of the facts either. It also shows deficiency in terms of lack of tangible facts and evidence in terms of the presented facts. It is demanding and calls for physical analysis and experimentation. In such terms, it would be better to reason by using the observable and tangible. Therefore, the intelligence design seems to be more feasible as compared to the evolution theory. It seems that things and occurrences shaping the Earth occur in a systematic and designated manner. The fact that species of the same kind display similar physical and physiological characteristics is evidence of the existence of a designer who plans the occurrences in advance. The supreme power is not necessarily the creation of God, but in light of the borrowed facts from creation and biblical myths, the intelligence design seems more real and accurate.