One of the automatic criticisms of the intelligent design movement is that it’s not really science. It’s been called creationism in a cheap disguise, Christianity’s attempt at pseudoscience and a philosophy unable to stand up to the standards of good scientific design (whatever that means). So, the question on the table is a simple one. Is intelligent design theory real science, and does it have a place in the scientific world? Be careful if you’re ready to say “no” to that question, because there is a consequence that most scientists are unprepared to accept.

 

If we refuse intelligent design as science, we must be prepared to send it to its death alongside archaeology, paleontology and any other branch of science where we can’t see, hear, touch and feel all the evidence and know its precise origins. That excavated bronze tool that a scientist digs up from an archaeological dig is useless and invalid if we reject intelligent design. Why? Because without using a rationale for design, there’s no way to determine whether the tool is actually a sign of a civilization from long ago, or whether a few atoms of copper and tin accidentally came together by random chance to coincidentally arrange themselves in the shape of a shovel. Sounds preposterous? I agree completely, but let’s take it a step further.

 

If we believe in only the validity of science that we can touch, feel and see, chemistry and nuclear physics have to go also. When was the last time anyone in the world of science touched, saw or felt an electron? All we can see are the effects of electrons, and for that matter, the effects of any molecular system. Molecular biology is also out, a good portion of astrophysics and cosmology becomes unscientific, and we’re left with a bunch of scientists facing the unemployment line. Of course, this is all absolute ridiculousness, and we know that to invalidate chemistry, physics or molecular biology would nullify some of the greatest contributions and discoveries that the world has ever known. How, then, do we justify doing science with the unseen?

 

The simple answer is that we don’t look at the un-seeable, but instead focus on the effects, consequences and outcomes. We’ve never seen an electron, but we observe the effects of an electron. We’ve never seen the body synthesizing a protein, yet we know it takes place by observing the effects. In the same way, we can apply this rationale to intelligent design. While we have never seen the Creator, we know that He exists because we can mathematically eliminate the probability that life could be generated and sustained by any natural, random chance method. We can apply probability theory to determine if there is any possibility that complex biological and biochemical systems could have occurred naturally, and when we find that the answer is a resounding “no” within the time frame of the universe, we can draw a logical conclusion. Isn’t that what scientific reasoning is all about? As a matter of fact, the theory of intelligent design follows the scientific method. Here’s the thought process:

 

Ask a scientific question: Is the complex biological world created through random chance, or the plan of a designer?

 

Develop a hypothesis: The world of biology is too functionally complex to be the product of random chance, and is therefore the product of intelligent design.

 

Validate experimentally: Probability experiments that verify that a complex sequence such as a protein or DNA has zero probability of forming within the time frame of the universe.

 

Draw a conclusion: Because there is no probabilistic way to rationalize random chance, the world must be the result of an intelligent design.

 

Seems as simple as the third grade science fair, no? So, if intelligent design is verifiable science, can be experimentally validated and has overwhelming probabilistic evidence to suggest it is correct, why is it persona non grata in schools, journals and the scientific community at large? Maybe it’s because paradigm shifts change the balance of power, and nobody at the top likes to be dethroned. Just my hypothesis, verify it as you will.