Is it possible to combine intelligent design with Darwin's theory of evolution?

Question

What's your opinion? Because I have a friend who says yes.

Answer 1

Sure, you can combine them, but in order for it to have scientific value it needs to be testable.

Presently we do have intelligent design at work in labs where we are experimenting with bacteria and viruses. In this case, the Intelligent Designers are humans. Suppose there is a biological attack using recombinant strains of bacteria, you can imagine that certain experiments could be conducted that could trace the origin of the recombinant strain to the lab it came from. In this way, you could in theory find an intelligent designer (or more likely, an intelligent modifier), but it would likely be human.

If you are looking for a Intelligent Designer that is supernatural, then it is unlikely you will find anything of scientific value, because testing for even the existence of supernatural beings has thus far proved to be fairly elusive.

Philosophically it can even be argued that evolution is an Intelligent Designer which complicates matters even further.

Answer 2

Evolution is a scientific theory, which means it offers an explanation for how the world works and makes predictions which can be tested against observations. Intelligent Design explains, but it does not predict. Intelligent Design is not a theory, because theories can be tested with experiments. Intelligent Design is a story.

If someone tells you that there's "no proof" for evolution or that the theory "can't explain" complex organs and biological systems or that it there is "controversy" in the scientific community, then he is displaying ignorance of over a century of scientific progress. Evolution enjoys as broad a scientific consensus as almost any other major theory.

Accepting the evolution of life requires understanding of the (overwhelming) evidence. Believing in Intelligent Design requires logical fallacies, such as the argument from ignorance: "If biologists can't explain (yet) how such complexity evolved, then it must have been designed!" I suppose you could do both, but it would require some intellectual gymnastics to compartmentalize your thinking. A scientific viewpoint (i.e., one based on observational evidence and reasoning) is more consistent with a god who is less of a "hands-on manager" than the Intelligent Designer.


By the way, biologists don't use "Darwin's theory of evolution," but rather they use "the theory of evolution." Unlike religious stories, scientific theories constantly change in response to new evidence. A biologist doesn't "believe in Darwin" the way a Christian "believes in Jesus;" a biologist "accepts the proof of evolution" the way a physicist "accepts the proof of gravity."

Answer 3

It is possible. Behe, a very prolific author on Intelligent Design is also an evolutionist. Behe believes in evolution, guided at each step by the hand of God.

I believe in ID, however I do not consider it a valid science, and I differ with even the more liberal views of Behe, concerning God's Creation.

I believe in intelligent design in the sense that God designed the laws of physics and nature in a way that was so perfent that He had no further need to interfere. I mean, everything would happen just as He planned it to, and everything that has happened was exactly what He planned.

I belive that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. However, everything that I see tells me that God obeys His own rules in almost all circumstances.

If God had to continuously roll up His sleeves and guide evolution towards what He wanted to evolve, then He obviously wasn't all-knowing, because He would only have to do such a thing if His planning was flawed from the beginning. I have a problem with that.

However, back on topic, you are correct. IDists are usually literal creationists, however ID does not exclude evolution. The biggest thing for IDists is that they don't want to hear that evolution happened by "chance." The problem with that is that evolution theory doesn't pose that complex systems like the eye evolve by "chance" either. Evolution doesn't say that God wasn't involved, nor that He was. As a scientific theory, evolution attempts to explain things in a naturalistic way. Like all scientific theories, methodological naturalism is used because that is the only empirical and objective way in which to operate.

Invoking the supernatural can never be scientific, even when one "disguises" the definition of supernatural. But one can always believe both evolution and ID, as long as they realize that ID is not science.

Answer 4

Intelligent design cannot be reconsiled with evolution, contrary to the above, because it explicitly invokes a continuous designer. The theory as of now in the mainstream contends that a supernatural entity guided directly our creation. It does not allow for evolution, period.

As a side note, a common way I hear of to reconsile a belief in god with evolution is at the origin of life, some people like to belief god just gave it just a little push in the right direction to get things started and left evolution to run its course. To many scientists, this beautiful and complex process is proof of god's existence. To others it is not, and nothing short of a deity appearing before them and everyone else in an indisputable manner will change their minds. Often in these forums we forget to respect each others beliefs, however misguided we may think they are. I hope this will change, as some of the questions are honest, such as this one, and not a blatant attack. So far everyone who responded has been very polite, which is a nice change from the norm here.

Answer 5

Not possible, as the theory of evolution explains how life came about " looking " designed, but actually being naturally selected. Irreducible complex does not well fit into Darwinian theory. Darwinists do not throw up there hands and give up on tough problems; intelligent designers do, as all they posit is a " something of the gaps " argument.

Answer 6

Yes, it is possible...partly.

While Darwin's Theory of Evolution makes some valid points--particularly that species adapt to changes in their environment over time--it does not even begin to attempt to address the origin of life, and has no satisfactory explanation for the evolution of complex biological systems (such as blood clotting) or organs (the eye).

Intelligent Design claims that life, and the systems to sustain it, are far too complex to have evolved by chance, and could not have spontaneously begun. Therefore, life on Earth must have been started by some un-named, but intelligent entity. It does not say whether this was God, or aliens, or something else. It also does not contest the proven part of Darwin's theory, that changes are seen in species over time as their environments change.

Answer 7

There is no way of reconciling Darwinian evoloution with intelligent design. One is a rational and well tested scientific principle, wheras the other is superstitious gibberish. Here in the Deep South we have lots of creationists - but we also have an amusing saying regarding what happens when you try to dress up a pig. It's still a pig. Any sort of paranormalism or supernaturalism is an affront to the intellect and scholatic honesty of all intelligent creatures. I have met creationists who are clever. I have met creationists who can speak glibly about their various cults. I've never met one who realized the evil of willingly embracing ignorance and superstition.

Answer 8

The two are mutually contradictory. Evolution by natural selection is a tested theory that explains all of biology. It can be used to make predictions and understand new phenomena. The other is a religious argument that is based on ignorance. The essence of their so called theory is that it's too complicated for me to understand so it must be magic. It makes no predictions and is not useful to make sense of new observations.

If you want to learn about science, then read books by biologist. Gould, Dawkins and even the original, Origin of Species.

Michael Behe is certainly not a mainstream biologist and his arguments have been refuted again and again.

Answer 9

The problem is that there is so much in our design that appears to be unintelligently designed. Our retinas are backward. Our teeth don't fit in our jaws (wisdom teeth). We wear glasses instead of having muscles to focus our eyes. We have an appendix, prone to inflammation.

Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, suggests that the Intelligent Design occurred hundreds of millions of years ago, and that evolution has happened since. So, yes, it's possible to combine evolution and Intelligent Design. But is it likely?

Answer 10

I'd say no. Intelligent design presumes someone is controlling things. Darwin's theory contends that adaptations occur to enable the organism to live in the environment to advantage, and to reproduce.