Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design and Evolution are two major theories that have been observed in the history of science. Proponents from both sides argue that they use different methodological approaches to back up their theories, which invalidates their opponent’s. There are several differences on their understanding of nature including the origin of life, natural selection, and the complexities the evolution. The most incompatible element of this debate is the methodological approach that either side takes in order to explain their understanding of nature. Whether they are really addressing the same issue is completely relative to how tolerant each side is of the other (should I clarify?) Despite their stark differences, both views have permeated the scientific and academic realms and have been accepted as popular theories worldwide.

Although evolutionary ideas entertained the minds of ancient philosophers, it wasn’t until 19th century when these ideas drew in legendary scientists (ie- Charles Darwin) and their harshest criticism. He addressed the concept of natural selection, in which life evolves through random mutations. Many concepts within evolutionary theory have been corroborated by scientific evidence. Scientists have been following DNA’s footprints, which have been permanently engraved by concrete genetic research. Therefore, usually don’t refute the basic tenets of evolution. There are some scientists and non-academics that do attempt to debunk the theory of evolution by purporting the notion of intelligent design (abbreviation: I.D.). Proponents of this spiritual concept look beyond the material world and assume that divine intervention has rendered the creation of life on earth. Although some intelligent design supporters accept some sub-theories of evolution such as common descent, they assert that a superior being is mostly responsible for the complexities of evolution especially when science has not yet explained it. Many I.D. proponents challenge evolutionists by claiming that natural selection isn’t random, but the miraculous handiwork of the higher being itself. Conversely, many evolutionists criticize their challengers for not forming their own theories and conducting original research.

This is a preview of the whole essay

These perceptual differences of evolution reflect the methodological approach that scientists from both sides take in order to explain their theories. As mentioned earlier, Darwinian evolution has been established with substantial scientific research. Evolutionists do not feel inclined to investigating beyond the material world. They have been universally accepted into secular schools as theories are reaffirmed through advanced studies of DNA; although evolution endured a controversial battle with the American education system. The Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 is reminiscent of the evolutionary theory’s most famous obstacle before receiving approval from many American school systems. When John Scopes, a high school teacher from Tennessee began teaching evolution based on Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species, he was indicted for illegally teaching it (Lewis). Ever since, evolution has been one of the most sensational topics among students, academics, and scientists. Intelligent design on the other hand, has not particularly been a pervasive study in schools, but it is a popular theory accepted by religious groups and reputable scientists. Their methodological approach, however, stems from complacency with the notion that a superior being controls the complexities of life especially when they cannot be explained by modern science. For example, Dr. Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University supports this approach by addressing the biological intricacy of hemophilia. If one of the over twenty proteins in blood clotting is deficient/missing, clots will not form properly. He believes that these “all or none systems”, as he calls it, can only be associated with a superior being (Chang). Evolutionists disparage the latter approach because it makes intelligent design an alternative solution to answering remaining mysteries within evolution. Such criticisms continue to fuel heated debates among evolutionists and scientists supporting intelligent design.

From an outsider’s perspective, one must question whether the debates on evolution and intelligent design are actually all-encompassing and sensitive to relativism. The crux of these debates seems to rely on a very rigid dichotomy between accepting evolution or rejecting it, when in fact, proponents of intelligent design vary in the extent of their support of evolution. There may be some I.D. proponents that believe the whole theory of evolution is heretic and many who at least support at least the very basic tenets of evolution. On the other hand, many evolutionists often overlook the fact that some I.D. proponents do in fact support evolution, even natural selection. It is under the notion, however, that even the randomness of mutation, itself, is designed and controlled by a superior being. Such varied beliefs among I.D. proponents make it very difficult for scientists to have an objective debate. Scientists cannot debate unless they clearly understand who they are arguing with. Relativism is observed when proponents of intelligent design do not accept the notion of natural selection and that the complexities of evolution can solely be explained by an intelligent cause. Otherwise, scientists are not really addressing the same questions. (do I need a better conclusion?)

Work Cited:

Chang, Kenneth. "In Explaining Life's Complexity, Darwinists and Doubters Clash." New York

Times 22 Aug. 2005.

Lewis, B., R. Jurmain, L. Kilgore

2007 Understanding Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. 9th Edition Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning (LB&K).

Teacher Reviews

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

Rebecca Lewis

24th of Sep 2012

This is a difficult topic to handle objectively, but even so this essay has done a poor attempt of remaining logical and scientific. The most important point to make in this essay is about methodology. The student has realised this, but then not really made the point very well. It doesn't matter to most scientists to what greater or lesser degree proponents of ID agree with evolution. The bone of contention is that wherever ID is used to patch a perceived 'crack' in evolutionary theory, this cannot be tested. It is not falsifiable. This is a really key point for scientists, because all scientific theories must make falsifiable predictions. There is also a dearth of scientific reading associated with this essay. It looks as though the student has done his best to answer the question based on his own experiences, and then looked up a couple of citations to back it up. There has been no real reading about the debate: no examples of discourse, and no real statistics about the number of scientists believing in Intelligent Design, which I believe the student has mentally inflated somewhat. Overall, this is a rather disappointing essay, and would score 3/5.

Did you find this review helpful? Join our team of reviewers and help other students learn