Intelligent Design Theory and the Existence of God

Intelligent Design Theory and the Existence of God

Faiyaz M. Khan

Introduction

This essay critically examines ChatGPT’s answer to the question about God’s existence through Intelligent Design (ID) theory: by providing academic sources for arguments favourable and against the theory. The key principles of ID will be scrutinised for their scientific and philosophical underpinnings to demonstrate their strengths and weaknesses. Ultimately, the essay will conclude on whether ChatGPT accurately answered the question; and whether ID is a theory that can prove the existence of God.

ChatGPT’s Answer

The Intelligent Design (ID) theory is a contemporary argument that suggests that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process like natural selection. Proponents argue that the complexity, order, and fine-tuning observed in nature indicate the work of an intelligent designer, often interpreted as God. This essay examines the key principles of ID, its scientific and philosophical implications, and how it contributes to arguments for the existence of God.

The Key Principles of Intelligent Design

ID is based on the premise that life and the cosmos exhibit characteristics that are unlikely to have emerged through chance and natural processes alone. There are three main pillars of ID:

1. Irreducible Complexity – Coined by biochemist Michael Behe, this concept states that some biological structures, such as the bacterial flagellum and the human eye, are so complex that they could not have evolved through gradual modifications. Behe argues that such structures require all their parts to function and thus must have been designed as fully formed entities.

2. Specified Complexity – Mathematician William Dembski introduced this idea, asserting that certain patterns in nature exhibit both high complexity and specificity, making them unlikely to arise by chance. DNA, with its intricate coding system, is often cited as an example of specified complexity.

3. Fine-Tuning of the Universe – Many scientists and theologians argue that the physical constants of the universe (such as gravity, electromagnetism, and the cosmological constant) are precisely calibrated for life to exist. The probability of such precise values occurring randomly is extremely low, leading proponents of ID to infer an intelligent cause.

Scientific and Philosophical Implications

ID has sparked significant debate within scientific and philosophical communities. Critics argue that ID is not a true scientific theory because it lacks empirical testability and relies on supernatural explanations. The scientific consensus generally supports evolutionary theory as the primary explanation for biodiversity. However, ID proponents counter that traditional evolutionary models fail to adequately explain the emergence of complex biological systems and the fine-tuning of the universe.

Contribution to the Existence of God

Intelligent Design contributes to proving the existence of God by providing a framework that supports the idea of a purposeful creator. It challenges naturalistic explanations of existence and strengthens the argument that life and the universe are products of intentional design rather than blind chance. While not universally accepted as definitive proof, ID provides compelling evidence that aligns with theistic worldviews, reinforcing belief in a divine intelligence.

Conclusion

ID theory presents a significant argument for the existence of God by highlighting the complexity and fine-tuning of life and the universe. While debated in scientific circles, its implications strengthen the philosophical case for a Creator. Whether seen as scientific evidence or a philosophical perspective, ID continues to shape discussions on the origins of life and the universe, reinforcing belief in an intelligent designer.

Response to ChatGPT’s Answer

There is some dispute on whether ID theory is a “contemporary argument,” as the idea can be traced back to one of the Five Ways proposed by Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274 CE) to prove the existence of God.[1] His fifth way which took Aristotle’s (d. 322 BCE) idea that “each thing has its own natural purpose or end”[2] and postulated that things that lack intelligence themselves cannot fulfil their purpose or end without the assistance of “an intelligent and knowledgeable being, which is God.”[3] Moreover, this argument was further developed by Samuel Clarke (d. 1729 CE) and William Paley (d. 1805 CE).[4]

The modern ID movement is normally traced back to Paley who famously used the watch found upon while “crossing a heath”[5] analogy for the existence of a designer due to its construction and design: similarly, he argued that “complex manifestations of specific design in the world”[6] and in the universe indicated a designer – God.[7] Conversely, Newton asserts that Aquinas’s fifth way does not support ID theory, as it does not depend on complexity and it has no objection to accept Darwinian evolution rationalisations that complexity was caused by “chance and natural selection.”[8] He further claims that unlike the fifth way, ID arguments are not “rigorous philosophical proof[s]” but rather only “probabilistic argument[s].”[9] Additionally, the fifth way does not deal with probabilities, as it is a cogent philosophical argument that affirms intelligence as necessary.[10]

While ChatGPT’s answer on how ID theory has developed includes mostly Christian scientists and philosophers,[11] it is worth noting that Muslim thinkers and scholars both medieval and modern, like the exegete Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 1209 CE), the theologian Ibn Qayyem al-Jawziyya (d. 1350 CE) and the Islamic scholar Said Nursi (d. 1960 CE) all argued for the existence of God through “transcendent intelligent design by means of scientific and philosophical inference,”[12] from “observable natural phenomena”[13] that is purposeful, systematic, arranged and coordinated.[14] Similarly, Ibn Qayyem reasoned that nature demonstrated God’s attributes of will, “ability, knowledge and wisdom.”[15] Thus, Muslim scholars have also contributed to the design argument.

ChatGPT’s answer does not provide any criticisms of design by earlier thinkers like Scottish philosopher David Hume (d. 1776 CE) who criticised the notion of an intelligent designer,[16] arguing that using the watch was “a very weak analogy”[17] as the watch and the world were vastly different to be suitably compared; and even if the analogy proves the existence of an intelligent designer, it does not prove that the designer has “any of the attributes of the Deity.”[18] Moreover, he asserted that as the universe was finite,[19] there was “no reason to believe that its cause is not likewise finite – and contingent;”[20] and that evil or “manifest defects in nature”[21] also disprove the designer’s perfection.[22] Additionally, Hume affirmed that there was no reason to assume that there was a single designer,[23] or that the designer was not human-like.[24]  Further, he argued that since no-one had witnessed the formation of the world, they could not empirically state that a divine being caused it.[25] However, since Hume the Big Bang theory which has been confirmed by a variety of evidence, does explain the formation of the universe and of our world,[26] this theory is mentioned in the Qur’an[27] and proves God’ existence as everything came from nothing.[28]

Furthermore, German Renaissance thinker Immanuel Kant (d. 1804 CE) agreed with Hume that the design argument did in no way prove the existence of “an omnipotent, omniscient or perfectly good God or even a creator;”[29] and nor did it establish the designer to be “a single God, as opposed to a plurality of gods.”[30] Conversely, Coyne claims that God can only be known through analogy, and that science has helped in deriving “analogical knowledge of God.”[31]

These criticisms of early ID theory from influential figures like Hume and Kant,[32] led to the theory lying dormant until technological advances led to the discovery of “finer levels of life”[33] in biochemistry which reignited the theory; as opening the “last remaining black box [which] was the cell”[34] revealed the existence of molecules.[35] In Darwin’s Black Box, Behe’s main contention is that Darwin’s theory of evolution which is “natural selection working on variation”[36] does not explain “how molecular machines – the basis of life – developed.”[37] While ID theory affirms that the development of every species is purposeful, evolution argues it is through “random mutations in genetic material,”[38] that is – “chance lies at the very foundation of life.”[39] Further, Behe claims that Darwin’s concept of gradualism cannot explain “an irreducibly complex system”[40] where several parts simultaneously interact to provide its necessary function, and removing any of those parts would be detrimental to that function.[41]

On the other hand, Darwinian evolutionists maintain that each part would form separately for a completely different function but in time combine to form a functioning system[42] – this cannot be the case for molecular machines, as the system needs all functioning parts together at the same time in order to carry out a specific function, otherwise it will not do so.[43] They also claim that the complexity found in molecular machines would be explained by Darwinian evolution sometime in the future,[44] thus, “Behe’s theory is founded on ignorance.”[45] The same can be said of their argument, as they are relying on the future to resolve the question of complexity which is also founded in ignorance, since no-one can know with certainty what will happen in the future.

Another key principle of ID theory developed by William Dembski is how to recognise design; he suggests that two things must be established before design can be inferred: these are complexity and specification.[46] He explains that an object must be complex so as to discount any reasonable explanation that it came about by chance;[47] and it must have specifications which displays patterns which is the “trademark of intelligence.”[48] To establish ID, there would have to be numerous possible competing outcomes that the intelligent designer would have had to choose from, and that the one chosen must be specified and complex in order to rule out chance.[49] However, this principle has been challenged as it cannot be proven empirically through observation. Nonetheless, Dembski and Ewert disagree, stating that the “design inference is robust, preserving probability,”[50] and so “entirely suited to scientific inquiry.”[51]

ChatGPT’s explanation on fine-tuning sums up what the proponents of ID affirm: that the incredibly improbable finely tuned combination of “the laws and constants of physics, the initial arrangement of matter and energy, and various other contingent features of the universe”[52] can only be best explained through ID. According to Bradley and Cottingham, modern astronomy and cosmology suggest a fine-tuned universe,[53] as the force of gravity, “the ‘strong’ force binding the nuclei of atoms,”[54] and the presence of water are of right strength and timing for life to exist.[55]

ID theory has also come under attack from those who accept theistic evolution, where they believe that God is directing evolution through the process of chance and natural selection.[56] According to Coyne, ID theory belittles God as a designer “who plans or assigns his minions to plan every step in the coming to be of life in the universe,”[57] as God should be seen as a parent nurturing the universe through evolution.[58] Furthermore, Newton argues that ID theory does not present God as the all-powerful “Creator God of the great monotheistic religions,”[59] but an “intelligent being [who] interacts with the universe only at key moments.”[60] In addition, he suggests that Aquinas supports the idea that God directs the evolutionary processes, since He is the “ultimate source of all being;”[61] while ID theorists posit that chance excludes “God’s involvement in directing the development of species.”[62] The main drawback of theistic evolution is the fact that Christian and Muslim scriptures assert divine order and purpose in the creation, not chance or randomness. In the Book of Genesis in the Bible, the creation narrative is one of order;[63] this is also the case with the Qur’an which states, “We did not create the heavens and the earth and everything between them for play,”[64] indicating that Allah created everything with order and with purpose.[65] Thus, theistic evolution is self-contradictory as it posits a guided process that is also unguided.[66]

Conclusion

To conclude, despite not highlighting ID theory’s many critics and criticisms, ChatGPT has answered adequately that ID theory puts forward forceful arguments for irreducible complexity, specified complexity and fine-tuning of the universe for the existence of God. Nevertheless, ChatGPT’s answer lacked academic sources, details of ID theorists’ scientific and philosophical arguments, as well as rebuttals to the many objections by opponents of ID theory.

 

 

Bibliography

Abdul Haleem, M. A. S., trans. The Qur’an. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

 

Al-Qoz, Anas Abdul-Hameed. Men & The Universe: Reflections of Ibn Al-Qayyem. Translated by Abdul-Latif Al-Khaiat. Riyadh: Maktaba Darussalam, 2000.

 

Austriaco, Nicanor Pier Giorgio. “The Intelligibility of Intelligent Design?” Angelicum 86, no. 1 (2009): 103-111. https://www.jstor/stable/44616558.

 

Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free Press, 2006.

 

¾. “Intelligent Design as an Alternative Explanation for the Existence of Biomolecular Machines.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1, no. 4 (1998): 565-570. https://www.jstor/stable/41939478.

 

Bradley, Walter L. “The ‘Just So’ Universe: The Fine-Tuning of Constants and Conditions in the Cosmos.” In Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, edited by William A. Dembski and James M. Kushiner, 157-170. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2001.

 

Clark, Kelly James. “Proofs of God’s Existence.” The Journal of Religion 69, no. 1 (1989): 59-84. https://www.jstor/stable/1204688.

 

Cottingham, John Graham. “Faith.” In Philosophy: The Illustrated Guide to Understanding and Using Philosophy Today, edited by David Papineau, 106-131. London: Duncan Baird Publishers, 2004.

 

Coyne, George V. “Evolution and Intelligent Design. What is Science and What is Not.” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 66, no. 4 (2010): 717-720. https://www.jstor/stable/41354836.

 

DeHaan, Robert F., and John L. Wiester. “The Cambrian Explosion: The Fossil Record and Intelligent Design.” In Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, edited by William A. Dembski and James M. Kushiner, 145-156. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2001.

 

Dembski, William A. “Reinstating Design within Science.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1, no. 4 (1998): 503-518. https://www.jstor/stable/41939475.

 

Dembski, William A., and Winston Ewert. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities. 2nd ed. Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2023.

 

Ewing, A. C. “Two ‘Proofs’ of God’s Existence.” Religious Studies 1, no. 1 (1965): 29-45. https://www.jstor/stable/20004606.

 

Harris, William S., and John H. Calvert. “Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution.” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 3, no. 3 (2003): 531-561. https://doi.org/10.5840/ncbq20033333.

 

Hasker, William. “Intelligent Design.” Philosophy Compass 4, no. 3 (2009): 586-597. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00213.x.

 

Hume, David. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Project Gutenberg, 2009. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4583/4583-h/4583-h.htm.

 

Meyer, Stephen C. Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe. New York: HarperOne, 2021.

 

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, ed., The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary. New York: HarperOne, 2015.

 

Newton, William. “A Case of Mistaken Identity: Aquina’s Fifth Way and Arguments of Intelligent Design.” New Blackfriars 95, no. 1059 (2014): 569-578. https://www.jstor/stable/43251857.

 

Paley, William. Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature. Rev. American ed. New York: Sheldon & Company, 1879. https://archive.org/details/naturaltheologyo00pale/page/4/mode/2up.

 

Reville, William. “Intelligent Design.” Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review 96, no. 383 (2007): 257-270. https://www.jstor/stable/27896480.

 

Reynolds, John Mark. “Getting God a Pass: Science, Theology, and the Consideration of Intelligent Design.” In Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, edited by William A. Dembski and James M. Kushiner, 80-89. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2001.

 

Setia, Adi. “Taskhir, Fine-Tuning, Intelligent Design and the Scientific Appreciation of Nature.” Islam & Science 2, no. 1 (2004): 7-32.

 

Shanks, Niall., and Keith Green. “Intelligent Design in Theological Perspective.” Synthese 178, no. 2 (2011): 307-330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9541-9.

 

Stefon, Matt. “The Five Ways.” In Encyclopaedia Britannica, May 15, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/topic/the-Five-Ways.

 

Temple, Dennis. “Hume’s Logical Objection to the Argument from Design Based on the Uniqueness of the Universe.” Religious Studies 28, no. 1 (1992): 19-30. https://www.jstor/stable/20019519.

 

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Argument from Design.” In Encyclopedia Britannica, June 16, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/topic/argument-from-design.

 

The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1952.

 

Tzortzis, Hamza Andreas. The Divine Reality: God, Islam & the Mirage of Atheism. New rev. ed. Selangor: Dakwah Corner Bookstore, 2022.

---

[1] Kelly James Clark, “Proofs of God’s Existence,” The Journal of Religion 69, no. 1 (1989): 69, https://www.jstor/stable/1204688; Matt Stefon, “The Five Ways,” in Encyclopaedia Britannica, May 15, 2020, para. 8, https://www.britannica.com/topic/the-Five-Ways.

 

[2] Stefon, “The Five Ways,” para. 8.

 

[3] Ibid.

 

[4] The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Argument from Design,” in Encyclopedia Britannica, June 16, 2017, para. 1, https://www.britannica.com/topic/argument-from-design.

 

[5] William Paley, Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature, Rev. American ed. (New York: Sheldon & Company, 1879), 5, https://archive.org/details/naturaltheologyo00pale/page/4/mode/2up.

 

[6] Clark, “Proofs of God’s Existence,” 70.

 

[7] John Graham Cottingham, “Faith,” in Philosophy: The Illustrated Guide to Understanding and Using Philosophy Today, ed. David Papineau (London: Duncan Baird Publishers, 2004), 109; Niall Shanks and Keith Green, “Intelligent Design in Theological Perspective,” Synthese 178, no. 2 (2011): 312-313, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9541-9.

 

[8] William Newton, “A Case of Mistaken Identity: Aquina’s Fifth Way and Arguments of Intelligent Design,” New Blackfriars 95, no. 1059 (2014): 572-573, https://www.jstor/stable/43251857.

 

[9] Ibid., 573.

 

[10] Ibid.

 

[11] William Hasker, “Intelligent Design,” Philosophy Compass 4, no. 3 (2009): 586,  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00213.x; John Mark Reynolds, “Getting God a Pass: Science, Theology, and the Consideration of Intelligent Design,” in Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, eds. William A. Dembski and James M. Kushiner (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2001), 88-89.

 

[12] Adi Setia, “Taskhir, Fine-Tuning, Intelligent Design and the Scientific Appreciation of Nature,” Islam & Science 2, no. 1 (2004): 17.

 

[13] Ibid.

 

[14] Ibid.

 

[15] Anas Abdul-Hameed Al-Qoz, Men & The Universe: Reflections of Ibn Al-Qayyem, trans. Abdul-Latif Al-Khaiat (Riyadh: Maktaba Darussalam, 2000), 63.

 

[16] Cottingham, “Faith,” 110.

 

[17] David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (Project Gutenberg, 2009), Part 2, para. 7, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4583/4583-h/4583-h.htm.

 

[18] Ibid., Part 5, para. 8.

 

[19] Ibid., para. 7.

 

[20] Clark, “Proofs of God’s Existence,” 71.

 

[21] Ibid.

 

[22] Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part 5, para. 8.

 

[23] Clark, “Proofs of God’s Existence,” 71; Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part 5, para.10.

 

[24] Clark, “Proofs of God’s Existence,” 71; Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part 5, para. 15.

 

[25] Cottingham, “Faith,” 110.

 

[26] Dennis Temple, “Hume’s Logical Objection to the Argument from Design Based on the Uniqueness of the Universe,” Religious Studies 28, no. 1 (1992): 26, https://www.jstor/stable/20019519.

 

[27] Qur’an, 21:30. This paper has used The Qur’an, translated by M. A. S. Abdul Haleem.

 

[28] Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, The Divine Reality: God, Islam & the Mirage of Atheism, New rev. ed. (Selangor: Dakwah Corner Bookstore, 2022), 88.

 

[29] A. C. Ewing, “Two ‘Proofs’ of God’s Existence,” Religious Studies 1, no. 1 (1965): 38, https://www.jstor/stable/20004606.

 

[30] Ibid.

 

[31] George V. Coyne, “Evolution and Intelligent Design. What is Science and What is Not,” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 66, no. 4 (2010): 720,  https://www.jstor/stable/41354836.

 

[32] The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Argument from Design,” para. 1.

 

[33] Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Free Press, 2006), 8.

 

[34] Ibid., 13.

 

[35] Ibid., 10.

 

[36] Ibid., 5.

 

[37] Ibid.

 

[38] Robert F. DeHaan and John L. Wiester, “The Cambrian Explosion: The Fossil Record and Intelligent Design,” in Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, eds. William A. Dembski and James M. Kushiner (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2001), 146.

 

[39] Ibid.

 

[40] Michael J. Behe, “Intelligent Design as an Alternative Explanation for the Existence of Biomolecular Machines,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1, no. 4 (1998): 567, https://www.jstor/stable/41939478.

 

[41] Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, 39; Behe, “Intelligent Design,” 567.

 

[42] Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, “The Intelligibility of Intelligent Design?” Angelicum 86, no. 1 (2009): 106, https://www.jstor/stable/44616558; Coyne, “Evolution and Intelligent Design,” 719; Newton, “A Case of Mistaken Identity,” 570-571; William Reville, “Intelligent Design,” Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review 96, no. 383 (2007): 263-264, https://www.jstor/stable/27896480.

 

[43] Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, 5; Behe, “Intelligent Design,” 567; Newton, “A Case of Mistaken Identity,” 571.

 

[44] Austriaco, “The Intelligibility of Intelligent Design?” 106.

 

[45] Newton, “A Case of Mistaken Identity,” 571.

 

[46] William A. Dembski, “Reinstating Design within Science,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1, no. 4 (1998): 508, https://www.jstor/stable/41939475.

 

[47] William A. Dembski and Winston Ewert, “The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities,” 2nd ed. (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2023), 277.

 

[48] Dembski, “Reinstating Design within Science,” 508.

 

[49] Ibid., 512.

 

[50] Dembski and Ewert, “The Design Inference,” 252.

 

[51] Ibid.

 

[52] Stephen C. Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe (New York: HarperOne, 2021), 153.

 

[53] Walter L. Bradley, “The ‘Just So’ Universe: The Fine-Tuning of Constants and Conditions in the Cosmos,” in Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, eds. William A. Dembski and James M. Kushiner (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2001), 157-158; Cottingham, “Faith,” 111.

 

[54] Cottingham, “Faith,” 111.

 

[55] Bradley, “The ‘Just So’ Universe,” 164; Cottingham, “Faith,” 111.

 

[56] Coyne, “Evolution and Intelligent Design,” 719-720; Newton, “A Case of Mistaken Identity,” 577.

 

[57] Coyne, “Evolution and Intelligent Design,” 719.

 

[58] Ibid., 720.

 

[59] Newton, “A Case of Mistaken Identity,” 577.

 

[60] Ibid.

 

[61] Ibid., 575.

 

[62] Ibid., 574.

 

[63] The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version (New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1952), 1-2.

 

[64] Qur’an, 21:16.

 

[65] Seyyed Hossein Nasr, ed., The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary (New York: HarperOne, 2015), 812-813.

 

[66] William S. Harris and John H. Calvert, “Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution,” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 3, no. 3 (2003): 540, https://doi.org/10.5840/ncbq20033333.