In this blog post, I will examine the core arguments of creationism and evolution, with a focus on “intelligent design,” and share my views on them.
At some point in their lives, everyone has asked themselves, “How did humans first come to be?” To answer this question, creationism and evolution have been in sharp conflict for over 200 years. Creationism is the view that the origins of humans, life, Earth, and the universe were brought about by divine intervention. In other words, it asserts that all life was created by God. In contrast, the theory of evolution—which stands in opposition to creationism—is based on the theory of natural selection presented by Charles Darwin in ‘On the Origin of Species’. The theory of evolution explains that simple life forms gradually evolved into the diverse life forms we see today through repeated cycles of natural selection and change over a long period of time.
Creationism largely serves as the foundation of religious doctrine and views the Creator or the Absolute as the source of all life. On the other hand, some people believe that the theory of evolution is more persuasive than creationism because it has developed from attempts to scientifically explain natural phenomena. In response to this, William Dembski seeks to explain creationism through scientific argumentation using the concept of “intelligent design.”
The theory of intelligent design, as argued by William Dembski in ‘Intelligent Design’, holds that life was intentionally designed. He argues that by utilizing information, one can distinguish between natural causes and intelligent causes through specific criteria and analytical tools. The core concept here is “specified complexity.” Dembski explains that specified complexity can serve as a criterion for distinguishing between natural causes and intelligent causes. In other words, it allows us to determine whether the origin of an object or life is the result of chance or design.
Specified complexity consists of three elements: indeterminacy, complexity, and specification. First, indeterminacy means that a phenomenon did not occur necessarily and therefore presupposes various possibilities. Conversely, if something is not indeterminate, it can be viewed as necessary. Complexity is the concept that the more complex a phenomenon is, the lower the probability that it occurred by chance. Specification refers to a specific pattern and, when combined with complexity, serves as a criterion for determining whether something was designed. Therefore, if an object is indeterminate and complex but lacks specificity, it can be viewed as the result of chance; however, if it is indeterminate, complex, and possesses specificity, one can argue that it was designed. Demske argues that life is a designed entity because it possesses this specified complexity.
“Intelligent Design” presents “irreducible complexity” as another important concept alongside specified complexity. William Dembski uses this concept to critique Darwin’s theory of evolution and to explain the validity of creationism. Irreducible complexity is a concept introduced by Michael Behe in ‘Darwin’s Black Box’, meaning that if even a single component of the whole is missing, the system as a whole cannot function properly.
Demske applies this concept to living organisms. He argues that existing living organisms are already complete organisms, and that their functions can only be maintained normally if all organs are present. In contrast, evolutionary theory explains that life gradually changed over a long period of time to become new life forms. This would require the premise that life forms prior to evolution were in an incomplete state, but Dembski argues that this contradicts the concept of irreducible complexity. Based on this logic, he emphasizes the validity of creationism, which posits that life was designed by an intelligent designer.
Furthermore, William Dembski introduces the concept of the “cosmic probability limit” to critique the naturalistic explanation of origins offered by evolutionary theory. According to his argument, events that can occur only with an extremely low probability in the universe cannot happen by chance, and the high level of complexity exhibited by living organisms today has an even lower probability than these events. Therefore, it is difficult to view living organisms as having arisen solely through natural or random processes; ultimately, they are beings created by the design of a Supreme Being.
I agree with the theory of intelligent design proposed by William Dembski. I believe that everything in the universe, including life on Earth, must have an origin. Applying the concept of specified complexity, it is difficult to view the universe—which is both indeterminate and complex yet possesses specificity—as having come into existence through mere chance.
Let us assume that a certain phenomenon A occurs in the universe. In that case, there must be a cause r1 for A to occur, and in turn, there must be a cause r2 for r1 to exist. In the same way, we can consider r3 as the cause of r2, and this process continues indefinitely. If we accept the premise that the universe could not have arisen by chance, tracing these causes back endlessly leads to the conclusion that an ultimate source, r∞, must exist. Since the origin of life is also a phenomenon occurring in the universe, I believe the same logic applies.
Darwin’s theory of evolution is meaningful as a theory explaining the process by which life changes. However, if we continue to trace back to the state prior to the evolution of life, it ultimately fails to provide a sufficient explanation for the very first origin. This is because, even if an imperfect precursor organ was the starting point of life’s evolution, the theory cannot explain why that precursor organ itself came to exist. In this respect, the theory of evolution has its limitations. In contrast, the theory of intelligent design presents a coherent explanatory framework by attributing the ultimate origin to an intelligent designer, and I find this perspective persuasive.
Meanwhile, among those who criticize intelligent design and defend the theory of evolution, some argue for the validity of the theory of evolution by pointing out the limitations of “irreducible complexity” and “cosmic probability limits.” However, I believe these criticisms warrant further logical scrutiny. Accordingly, I would like to present a few opinions, focusing on a previous essay that criticized “intelligent design.”
First, the previous essay argues that “irreducible complexity” is a black-and-white argument that ignores differences in degree. The author explains that the characteristics of living organisms are determined not by their presence or absence but by differences in the degree of their traits, and that these differences must be taken into account. However, I believe that the concept of perfection used by the author differs from the concept of perfection referred to in “irreducible complexity.”
The perfection referred to in “irreducible complexity” means that every element constituting a living organism must be present. In other words, the criterion is the presence or absence of constituent elements. In contrast, the previous essay uses human height as an example and explains perfection based on the superiority or inferiority of traits. Therefore, the concept of perfection used in the preceding essay and the concept of perfection used in “irreducible complexity” are based on different premises. Furthermore, I believe that sufficient argumentation has not been presented regarding why the characteristics of living organisms should be understood in terms of degree rather than mere presence or absence. In this respect, this criticism has the limitation of being based on a different meaning of perfection rather than being a critique directed at the concept of “irreducible complexity” itself.
Second, the author of the preceding essay argues that the “cosmic probability limit” proposed by intelligent design theory lacks persuasiveness because it does not sufficiently account for time, and that evolutionary theory is, in fact, more valid. While acknowledging that the probability of specific amino acids combining to match the human DNA sequence is extremely low, he explains that such combinations could certainly occur given enough time.
As evidence, the author cites Miller’s experiment. In this experiment, a high-voltage electric current was passed through a mixture of water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen, resulting in the formation of organic compounds—including amino acids—after a certain period of time. Based on this, he argues that amino acids can be produced even from simple molecular structures through random stimulation alone, and that given sufficient time, the bonding of amino acids can gradually evolve into forms similar to the protein structures found in complex living organisms. He also presents the logic that since the bonding of amino acids occurs randomly and repeatedly in very brief moments, even events with an extremely low probability can eventually occur over a long period of time.
However, I believe there is a logical leap in this argument. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that random amino acid bonding will inevitably lead to a structure like the human DNA base sequence. Furthermore, no explanation was provided as to why the bonding structure would evolve toward a form similar to the DNA base sequence over time.
The preceding essay merely suggests the possibility of random reactions but does not sufficiently discuss the probability that such reactions would actually form a structure identical to the human DNA sequence. Rather, I believe this case can also be explained by the concept of “specified complexity.” Although amino acid bonding reactions can continue to occur, if the process is random, the formation of a structure that exactly matches a DNA base sequence remains an indeterminate event. Furthermore, since DNA base sequences possess a highly complex yet specific structure, proponents of intelligent design interpret this as an example of “specified complexity” and argue that it is the result of design.
It is difficult to say that either creationism or evolutionism has presented conclusive experimental results that directly prove the origin of life. Therefore, it is not easy to assert that only one theory is absolutely scientific. Ultimately, the two theories can be viewed as competing by presenting different hypotheses and logic based on observations.
The central issue in the debate between creationism and evolution lies in explaining whether the origin of humans and life stems from natural causes or from an intelligent cause. For this discussion, it is first necessary to assume that humans can distinguish between natural and intelligent causes. “Intelligent design” explains that such a distinction is possible based on information theory and attempts to propose analytical criteria for distinguishing between natural and intelligent causes.
It is difficult to definitively assert that either creationism or evolution is the ultimate answer. The debate over the origin of life is likely to continue. However, through the process of criticizing and complementing one another, both theories have refined their logic and raised various philosophical questions not only about the origin of life but also about human existence and the meaning of life. In this regard, the debate between creationism and evolution will continue to be a subject of meaningful discussion.
