Evolution vs Intelligent Design: Questions Worth Asking

Evolution vs Intelligent Design: Questions Worth Asking

Recently, a highly publicized discussion on the nature of creation versus evolution was held between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. Interestingly, the scientific realities of Intelligent Design (ID) versus evolution were not brought up, even though they offer some questions worth asking. Whereas creationism is based primarily in faith and historically accurate religious documents, ID science is a detailed study of empirical evidence which does not limit itself to the preconceived conclusion of “evolution.”

Evolution, which means “change over time,” is an absolute reality. Everything in the whole of known existence changes over time. However, the blind insistence that natural selection, chance, mutation and “survival of the fittest” were all that was necessary to turn a microbe into a microbiologist, requires an unusually high level of faith.

Faith, that a “missing link” will be found for every creature of the Cambrian. Faith, that science will eventually discover how life began. Faith, that there has actually been enough time since the beginning of the universe for DNA to have formed. Faith, that some testable, repeatable, unimpeachable proof will arise, which cannot be completely explained away using logic and science. The amount of blind faith necessary to believe in evolution, would humble a Gregorian monk.

All too often, readily understood processes like genetic drift and microevolution are given as evidence of the macro evolution described by Darwinian evolution theorists. Genetic drift for instance, is the process by which we get so many different breeds of modern dog, all based upon the Wolf. All dogs and wolves can interbreed successfully; that is one of the reasons they are known as a single species. Speciation in itself, is still so poorly understood – even by the evolution theorists who study it – there is still no definitive literature which explains exactly what speciation is. Nor has any genuine speciation event – where one distinct species has “evolved” into a completely separate and more fit species – ever been recorded. The best the current literature can point to is where one strain of a species has lost enough genetic information that it can no longer interact with its cousins, or behaves in a slightly different manner.

Sadly, the literature of evolution theorists is filled with words like “believed” and “indicates” or “inferred.” When the dogmatic shackles of evolution are removed from the research, the data and mechanisms are always described with words like “designed” and “created.” Natural selection and blind chance cannot, by their very nature, employ the wisdom of foresight. That fact never seems to stop to the evolution theorists from implying that “nature has a plan.”

The first, and easily the hardest question for evolution to answer, is “how did life begin?” That question alone is what sparked the entire concept of Intelligent Design. As scientific disciplines like molecular biology advance, many of the preconceived notions which evolution required scientists to adhere to, either fail completely, or come up false. Evolution theorists do not believe those questions are worth asking, but the Intelligent Design scientist does.

The ever popular Tree of Life, which was the map of evolutionary progress according to Darwinian theory for well over a century, has been rendered utterly useless. Now that science can employ genetic links as opposed to simple physiological resemblances, many fossils which were once thought to be predecessors to modern animals, have been discovered to have no relationship, whatsoever. The Tree of Life has been chopped down in favor of the new Web of Life, because interlinked relationships must have had multiple sets of origins.

Evolution theorists will often point to mutation as the key driver of their hypothesis. Unfortunately for that theory, genetic mutations are predominantly destructive. Furthermore, for a beneficial mutation to take hold with in a viable population – just for one occurrence of genuine speciation, not that whole “microbes to microbiologist” chain of events – there has not been enough time on the planet. Thus far, every example of mutation available to cite, involves a loss of information, not a gain. Instances like “ring species” of birds, where mountain ranges have separated populations for thousands of years, wherein the two separate populations can no longer interbreed, represent a loss of genetic data, not the emergence of two separate new species.

Another question for the evolution theorists, which does creep slightly into the metaphysical realm of creationism, concerns the nature of data. Evolution theorists, in an the attempt to stump religion, insist that all arguments must be based in empirical, measurable, natural world realities. Evolution theorists love to demand “show me proof of God!” God is assumed to be unquantifiable, and therefore easily dismissed as a source of information. However if the word “information” is used to replace the word God, the argument takes on a whole new set of complexities. Information, for all that it can be stored, referenced, built upon and amassed, cannot be weighed, measured or clocked.

Evolution vs Intelligent Design: Questions Worth Asking
This simple process brought to you by random chance!

Information is an absolute intangible, and yet every molecule of the genetic code is packed with it. Modern computer science has yet to come up with anything even close to the data storage capacity of DNA. A blank CD without any information written on it, will not weigh one iota less than it does when it is completely packed with movies and music and whatnot. Like that CD, genes and amino acids are useless without the information their organization requires. DNA is not simply a set of instructions on how to assemble building materials. It is a beautifully organized, flawlessly balanced, supremely flexible and elegant masterpiece of design.

Anyone who has visited Mount Rushmore in the Black Hills of South Dakota, can easily tell where the hand of man employed “design,” and where it did not. There are other rock faces in the Black Hills; there are even other rubble strewn landslides. Not one of which comes anywhere close to the obvious design necessary to put president’s faces on the rock. No one would be willing to say that erosion, water and wind formed those faces. They are very obviously designed, which means some designer was necessary to create them. So, what makes all of the intricate designs in biology, capable of being randomly produced? Evolution theorists don’t believe it’s worth their time to ask those kinds of questions, but Intelligent Design scientists will pursue them to their logical conclusion.

Evolution vs Intelligent Design: Questions Worth Asking
Natural Selection and random chance had nothing to do with this simple rock formation.

There are of course thousands of examples of intelligent design around the world; various henges, from the megalithic Stonehenge in England, to numerous rock formations throughout the eastern US. Archaeolo-astrology evident in the alignments of the stones with various heavenly bodies on specific important dates, proves they were shaped and placed by the hand of man. Stone monuments and cities in the jungles of South America and Asia – which have been discovered grown over with plant life – are obviously not random collections of stones which fell together in the shape of cities.

Why is it then, that perfectly reasonable, purportedly intelligence scientific minds, when looking at the millions of obvious designs inherent in biology, demand they all occurred by random chance? Intelligent Design scientists ask those questions, where evolution theorists don’t even believe it is worth their time.

Another excellent question for the evolution theorist revolves around how did the sexes become separate. Asexual reproduction is an abundantly more “fit” process to pass along genetic information, even if it is a lot less fun. All current single celled organisms known, are asexual. Quite a few of the lower order multicellular animals are, as well.

Since evolution requires the “incremental, slow but sure” advancement of any evolutionary addition, what possible process would divergent sex organs have undergone?  More importantly perhaps; why did natural selection slide evolutionarily critical spermatozoa and a smelly waste product, down the same channel? If survival of the fittest worked as advertised, wouldn’t those two functions require separate apparatus?

Evolution vs Intelligent Design: Questions Worth Asking
Evidence of design eliminates the possibility of random chance.

The scientists who promote Intelligent Design ask reasonable, logical questions, which the evolution theorist’s dogmatic ideology says are not even worth discussing. A condition which seems counterintuitive, considering the brilliant minds which populate the evolution camp. When pressed about the design issue, one very famous evolutionist/atheist, Dr. Richard Dawkins, invoked the science fiction concept of galactic panspermia. The theory that aliens from outer space – which of course developed “by some Darwinian means” – spread life about the cosmos by seeding earth-like planets.

There is another even more far-fetched theory which evolution theorists have been forced to adopt. In that, mathematically speaking, there has not been enough time since the Big Bang for DNA to have developed the information rich structure it possesses, evolution hopefuls have had to jump through some very contorted hoops. Every aspect of the known universe seems to have been delicately and elegantly designed for life to exist on planet Earth. Gravity, the speed of light, all of the various constants, even the very mass and expansion rates of the universe, must be exactly precisely what they are – in one case, the cosmological constant, to 16 decimal places out – for complex life to exist. The odds against all of those constants being so perfectly balanced, are so infinitesimal as to be called “utterly nonexistent.”

Those particular facts are becoming so universally accepted, that the evolution theorist has had to adopt the least provable theory possible, in order to contend with it. The Multiverse theory. There is, quite literally, more tangible evidence of God, than there is of a multiverse. However, when faced with the mathematical reality of the incalculable odds against life happening anywhere, the atheist/evolutionist camp was forced to re-slant the odds in their favor.

With evolution theorists coming up with answers as improbable and unprovable as “the multiverse,” is it even worth an Intelligent Design scientist asking them further questions?

Commentary by Ben Gaul


UK Telegraph     kidmed.com     Center for Science & Culture

Sciencedirect.com      creation.com

Guardian Liberty Voice1     Guardian Liberty Voice2

16 Responses to "Evolution vs Intelligent Design: Questions Worth Asking"

  1. Henry Youndt   July 18, 2015 at 11:21 am

    For an interesting perspective on intelligent design, check out my novel, Pyramids of Thrush Creek. (Available on Amazon). In this adventure novel, Roger and his friends debate their conflicting world views while coping with life’s unexpected twists and turns.

  2. Tony Cawood   March 4, 2014 at 1:25 am

    Can an electron evolve into a super electron over time the same as man has evolved from the ape…hahaha!

  3. Tom Peers   February 28, 2014 at 8:25 am

    Great thoughts Ben. And … as you can see … when one questions the scientific evidence for evolution, which is totally sacrosanct, expect the backlash. Much like Copernicus and Galileo, we dare not question the majority opinion.

    • Ben Gaul   March 2, 2014 at 9:00 pm

      Thanks Tom. I appreciate the sentiment and the support. I take great joy in pointing out the atheist/evolutionist need for faith in their worldview. Faith has been described as “evidence of things unseen,” which makes it a perfect fit for the evolution theorist.

      I find it particularly entertaining when they invoke “natural selection of the gaps” when holes get poked in their theories: “Science just has not discovered that yet!” What will they do, when all of our science and research leads to the inevitable conclusion that there is, indeed, a God?

  4. BPatmann   February 27, 2014 at 1:01 pm

    Atheists, even at the highest level, always respond to ID arguments mere by stating that they are “fallacies” and “straw man” arguments, but they always avoid responding to the ID arguments and they never explain how such arguments are fallacious. Calculating the probability of one million nucleotides changing to a specific new configuration (i.e, a new species) is a trivial calculation (1 / 4^1000000), which demonstrates the near impossibility of such a change taking place. However, I have yet to see an atheist explain away such an infinitesimal probability.

    • Ben Gaul   March 2, 2014 at 9:11 pm

      Wait, something is terribly wrong here! You’re obviously one of those dunderhead “I D” hooligans, so you cannot possibly using something as hard & fast as math to make your points. You’re supposed to be quoting Leviticus!

      Thanks though, B. I honestly had no idea there were that many zeros after the “power of.” How big a number IS four to the one millionth power?

  5. Chaosqueued   February 27, 2014 at 9:04 am

    Your strawman argument, filled with weasel words and numerous other logical fallacies is disingenuous at best. How do you expect to understand the most complex aspects of Evolution when you fail at basic concepts taught high school biology?

    • Ben Gaul   February 27, 2014 at 9:50 am

      Allow me the opportunity to parse your erudite utterances, Chaos Q:

      “My vocabulary is legendary. Comely coeds connived to copulate with my cogitations. I will pit the power of my pontification against your perceived paltry prognostications, by intimating that my imagined intellect should intimidate your ill spoken ineptitudes.”

      Sadly for you, Q, and despite the fact that I am probably a harmless petite little flower, you’re going to need more than empty accusations to cause my boots to shake.

      How’s about you give answer to one of my obviously silly questions? THAT might shut me up.

  6. Skeptic NY   February 27, 2014 at 8:20 am

    ID is not science but creationism in a lab coat. Anyone who suggests that ID is science and/or explains the diversity of life is either woefully ignorant of science or dishonest.

    • Ben Gaul   February 27, 2014 at 9:59 am

      Skeptic, I understand exactly how you feel. In fact, for the longest time I felt that way myself. Then, when I examined the facts, I found that it was evolution which required the most faith. Evolution and the mechanism of “natural selection,” are absolutely necessary for atheism.

      Humans, being what they are, do not like their deeply held beliefs to be challenged. Every scrap of “evidence” for evolution, comes with the disclaimer of inference. Nothing is testable, nothing is repeatable, nothing is tangible. The entire ball of wax is based on assumptions which always seem to fail as more knowledge about the natural world is accrued.

  7. Gerald Skoog   February 27, 2014 at 5:31 am

    The basic tenets of intelligent design are based on philosophical deductions and axioms, and not scientific evidence. The supposition that life was and is created by an intelligent designer can’t be tested. ID has no potential help scientists and others combat infectious diseases, herbicide-resitant plants, antibiotic-resistance microbes, etc. ID is creationism disguised. A related question: do creationist want Genesis 1 taught where humans were created last or Genesis 2 where Adam was created first?

    • Ben Gaul   February 27, 2014 at 10:10 am

      “Philosophical deductions?” Please. For the love of Science. Give me one genuine fact, which you know to be absolutely true, about evolution.

      Just so we’re playing in the same ballpark, please know that a “fact” is not a supposition, an inference, a “points to” or a deeply held belief. Facts are testable, repeatable and observable.

      Intelligent Design employs hokey faith-based ideas like math, irreducible complexity and my personal favorite: Allowing the data sets to lead to their actual conclusions, without forcing them to fit into the preconceived mold and religious dogmatism of “evolution.”

  8. mick from townsville   February 27, 2014 at 5:15 am


    Your ” first, and easily the hardest question for evolution to answer, is “how did life begin?” ” is not even a question addressed or attempted to be answered by evolution. That is the study of abiogenesis.

    Your sheer lack of knowledge of even basic scientific method, modern research and your strawman arguments make me barf.

    • Ben Gaul   February 27, 2014 at 10:20 am

      Yeah. How dare I ask an evolution theorist one of the most basic questions in science? I mean, even though every person who purports to study abiogenesis, is a “true believer” in the dogmatism’s of evolution, the twain should never meet.

      Perhaps if I stuck to an easier question, like “which came first, the micromachines necessary for the building and maintenance of the DNA strand, or the terabytes of information contained within the DNA strand necessary for the creation of all those micromachines?”

      Does that make your life easier, Mick?

  9. Becky   February 26, 2014 at 10:59 pm

    Great piece. I know a science teacher who believes in creationism.

    • Ben Gaul   February 27, 2014 at 10:40 am

      Why thank you Becky. I appreciate your comment.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.