Which Way, Natural Selection or Intelligent Design - Essay Example

Which Way, Natural Selection or Intelligent Design The intelligent design argument refers to the negative approach to the natural forces at work as well as to the natural selection as an essential factor in bringing different forms of life that are observed by humans. This argument postulates that an intelligent designer was the force behind everything that is observed today. Indeed, this argument further postulates that the appearance of organisms has no significant contribution to the survival success of the ancestors which is experienced in the natural selection. Indeed, the intelligent design was significant in bringing life in all the forms observed today very quickly as compared to the gradual process witnessed in the natural selection theory (Roderick 1). In the Charles Darwin’s evolution theory also referred to as the natural selection, it is stated that initially before their variability species had common ancestors, where the differences in organisms were attributed to adaptations to a wide range of environments. As such, environmental conditions played a part in identifying species that were deemed as the best suited to survive. In addition, traits of different organisms are passed on to the new generations. Given some time, the traits could easily lead to the appearance of a new species (Roderick 1). It should be noted that, the natural selection theory was formulated after a long study period involving the study of different animal as well as various plant samples where inferences derived from the analysis which indicated that organisms had similar as well as dissimilar characteristics. This paper seeks to explore the raging debate on the intelligent design versus the natural selection. With this in mind, the underlying facts behind each of the subjects are going to be analyzed; however, the final goal is to show what is more likely to be true: the natural selection theory or the intelligent design one. Considering the evidence laid down by both approaches I do conclude that the theory of evolution offers a better explanation of the variability in life forms. As such, I will look through simplicity and explanatory power as well as the predictive success of the two ideas. In terms of simplicity, the evolutionary theory wins the whole show. Looking from the position of the ontological complexity, the two ideas include the existence of the different forms of life, however, in the case with the intelligent design the designer and the material employed in the design have to be included (Muggy 1). In addition, a problem arises regarding the intelligent designer origin. Since, this creator has a greater capability and more complexity than even the capabilities of the current human beings. This poses a question, are humans supposed to be designed? However, in regards of the dynamic complexity of a human life, both theories tend to agree on the reproductive capabilities of all the organisms, though this is not very clear in the intelligent design theory. On the other hand, the natural selection implies that there is a biological process which accounts for the observed similarities amongst offsprings and their parent organisms (Roderick 1). Indeed, it is easier to believe this since this phenomenon can be observed in many of the organisms, this further implies that there should be a particular activity that allows such functioning. However, the intelligent design theory postulates the presence of the design processes which are outside of whatever goes on during the reproduction. In regards to the explanatory power, the evolutionary theory also takes the lead. Due to the fossil records, the gaps between the species are completed. Indeed, fossils point out at the transitional period which a particular organism passes to another state as indicated in the Charles Darwin theory. However, the intelligent design does not account for the transitional fossils, thus, with the discovery of more fossils, the weaknesses of the intelligent design are laid bare. By and large, the intelligent design argument on irreducible complexity, that is contrary to the evolution principle, does not explain the reason why some forms of life exhibit similar characteristics and some organisms have parts in common, but perform different duties. Indeed this gives support to the evolution theory (Roderick 1). For instance, the bacterial flagellum, has been postulated by the intelligence design as an organism having an irreducibly complexity motor. Indeed, its motor has the same characteristics as a syringe-like part that belongs to the bacterium Yersinia pestis since they make use of a similar protein type, but Yersinia lacks the required number of proteins needed for the motor. Thus, despite lacking these proteins its structure still functions as a vessel for carrying diseases such as the Bubonic plague. Considering this evidence, the motor is, thus, not an irreducibly complexity. Last, but not least, I believe that an evolution still carries the lead on the predictive success. The intelligent design offers no predictions. As such, the initial claim in regards to the designing of species as well as the silent reference to the implications of the design leaves nothing to test against. Whereas, in the case with the evolution there is a plethora of predictions where no scientific proofs have been found to be contradictory to the evolutionary approach during the past 150 years (Plotkin 77). Indeed, Darwin’s predictions of the fossil records have been proven true, and, today, modern genetics has proven the Darwin’s view concerning the common ancestry of apes and humans. In fact, all the observation and experiments done in modern genetics and/or molecular biology, have confirmed the authenticity of the evolution theory. Thus, it is worth mentioning that evolution is a better argument as it has a higher degree of predictability. Notably, I have a personal view that the fundamental beliefs held by the intelligent design group is a major threat to some values held in the society since such intelligence has the capability to turn a man into well-guided mass destructive weapons. Notably, the move has been greatly driven by some fundamental Christians meant to forcibly introduce their scientific creation theory into the mainstream schools in the US through their teachings of biology and astronomy as well as geology and cosmology (Ward & Brownlee 29). Indeed they view this as a substitute for the scientifically proven natural selection theory. Though I have little knowledge and power to be influential over the way of thinking of those who believe in the intelligent design as well as the Bible interpretation as the only source of truth I still keep to a contrary opinion. I also have to point out to those who conform to the ideals of the intelligent design, that they still hold that stand due to the inadequacy of information they have, which, thus, makes them be mentally incapacitated (Polanyi 1). I have to admit that a number of metaphysical questions concerning the early beginning of the universe, what lies in the universe, and the like are typically beyond the thinking of the man and are basically based on his/her understanding of the physical laws. It should be pointed out that in general physics and other sciences explain nothing about the existence of the creator inside the bounds of science. Indeed, sciences that try to explain the universe conform to the theory of the natural section since no evidence suggests the existence of a supernatural force that plays a part in shaping the world. In fact, discoveries in relativity, as well as quantum mechanics have led to great revolutions in the world of science, but still supernatural force wasn’t necessary in order to gather the pieces together within the self-consistent knowledge. In conclusion, when a person examines both theories on the basis of simplicity and explanatory power as well as predictive success, it remains clear that the natural selection theory trumps the idea presented by the intelligent design and demonstrates a more coherent as well as testable prediction that concerns the origin of species. Works Cited Muggy, Smike. A Debate: Natural Selection Versus Intelligent Design. Muggsy’s Brain, 8 Aug. 2010. Web.1May 2013. . Plotkin, Haman. Darwin Machine and Nature of Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994. Print. Polanyi, Michael. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958. Print. Roderick, Kate. Intelligent Design versus Evolutionary Theory. University of Michigan Students of Objectivism, 19 Apr. 2008. Web. 1May 2013. . Ward, Peter D., & Donald Brownlee. Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe. New York: Copernicus Books, 2000. Print. Read More