In this blog post, we examine whether science provides a sufficient explanation for the origin of humanity, or whether the design of a supernatural being is necessary.
Humans have always wondered about their origins. These questions about the mysteries of the universe and the meaning of human existence have been raised continuously across various cultures and civilizations. Ancient religions and philosophies sought to interpret the origin of the world and the birth of life by proposing various hypotheses, and myths and legends often served to satisfy this curiosity. While these early attempts were often explained through faith and symbolism rather than concrete evidence, they served as an important foundation for humanity’s exploration of its origins over the centuries. As civilization gradually advanced and the human tendency to understand the world through observation and analysis grew stronger, various theories began to emerge.
In particular, for a long time, “creationism” was regarded as the only plausible approach to the origin of humanity. Creationism asserts that the birth of humans and the universe was planned and executed by a transcendent being, and each cultural sphere has passed down its own unique version of this creation story. In ancient Egypt, it was believed that the sun god Ra created the world, while in Mesopotamian civilization, it was thought that the gods ruled the world. These creation stories took root in religious scriptures and folklore, deeply influencing people’s ways of thinking, and to this day, they remain the basis of faith and belief for many people.
However, with the onset of the Reformation in the 17th century and the spread of the Enlightenment across Europe, the authority of religion began to wane. As critical thinking regarding religion gradually spread, people increasingly sought to understand nature and humanity through a scientific approach rather than through a transcendent being. During this period, with the publication of Darwin’s *On the Origin of Species*, “evolutionary theory” came to the forefront as the central theory explaining the origins of life, replacing “creationism.” As evolutionary theory gained widespread acceptance, creationism—which humanity had long regarded as a matter of faith—began to lose its influence. Nevertheless, the religious “theory of creation” and the scientific “theory of evolution” remain major points of contention, and people continue to wonder which is the only theory capable of explaining the origin of humanity.
Looking more closely at the views of scientists, the theory of evolution explains how biological species have changed and adapted based on observations of natural phenomena. When studying natural phenomena, scientists encounter mysterious situations and the grandeur of natural laws, leading them to begin accepting the limitations of a positivist approach. They wonder where such an orderly world and the laws that explain this order originate. In particular, the question of how biological evolution has occurred according to certain laws has been a subject of constant inquiry among scientists. Scientists have sought to resolve these questions by looking to nature itself, believing that organisms have evolved and will continue to evolve according to the laws governing the natural world. However, this approach failed to explain the origin of the laws themselves. This is still cited as a limitation of positivist science.
To overcome this limitation, William Dembski proposed the theory of “Intelligent Design.” This theory posits that these laws could not exist without a transcendent being who designed the world. Although “Intelligent Design” does not explain every law within science, it serves as an alternative for the transcendent aspects that evolutionary theory cannot account for. One of the grounds supporting Dembski’s “Intelligent Design” is “irreducible complexity.”
This refers to the characteristic of a system composed of several parts that perform a basic function, wherein the absence of even a single part renders the system incapable of performing that function (Behe, 1997). A mousetrap serves as an example. A mousetrap consists of a support, a hammer, a spring, a latch, and a locking bar; if any one of these is missing, it cannot function properly. This contrasts with the concept of gradual evolution in evolutionary theory.
According to evolutionary theory, today’s systems would have been incomplete systems in the past. However, since an incomplete system cannot function properly, it cannot fully perform the functions of a living organism. Irreducible complexity holds logical validity in this regard. Another basis for “Intelligent Design” is the “finely tuned universe.” This argument posits that current life forms could not exist without the intent of a designer. Many conditions are necessary for life to exist in the universe, and most of these conditions are determined by fundamental physical constants and forces, whose ranges are extremely narrow. In other words, the probability of the Earth’s ecosystem existing is mathematically very low. Therefore, even a slight change in these values would make life impossible. The claim that such fine-tuning was intentionally carried out by a designer is quite persuasive.
Of course, there are other arguments, such as the “watchmaker argument” and “irreducible complexity,” but these also assert that the origin and development of life cannot be explained without the intention of a designer. “Intelligent Design Theory” refutes “Evolutionary Theory” through these philosophical questions. “Evolutionary theory,” grounded in positivism, is also attempting to scientifically refute “Intelligent Design.” However, given the limitations of “Evolutionary theory” in explaining nature, the persuasiveness of “Intelligent Design” cannot be ignored. William Hopkins also had this to say about “Evolutionary theory”:
“It lacks verifiable evidence, is based on a priori speculation, and relies on a limited perspective rather than a broad view of the physical causes and phenomena that constitute what we call nature.”
Darwin’s *On the Origin of Species* was merely a hypothesis verified through observation; it did not derive all the laws of nature and is limited to conjecture based on incomplete information, so it is subject to error. Due to these limitations of “evolutionary theory,” current research is focused on finding decisive evidence that can transform these conjectures into certainty. Through the Renaissance and the Newtonian era, it developed into a positivist and agnostic framework. Agnosticism is a philosophy that holds it is impossible for humans to perceive the essence of things. Consequently, positivist theory concentrated on explaining scientific phenomena.
Modern science excels at applying natural laws to life or explaining the processes of phenomena. However, it has the limitation of being unable to resolve questions regarding the very existence of these laws. Given this reality, the argument that a new science transcending positivist science is necessary may be reasonable. “Intelligent Design,” which emerged from this context, could become a theory capable of opening new horizons for science. Although “Intelligent Design” itself originated from a position that questions “evolutionary theory,” it relies solely on logical development and inference rather than substantiating its claims with empirical evidence. When reading about “Intelligent Design,” it is difficult to distinguish whether it is science, philosophy, or religious content with scientific theory.
Ultimately, “Intelligent Design” offers only logic and reasoning to support its claims and has failed to produce any experimental results. While this makes it insufficient to garner widespread public acceptance, it is by no means lacking as a tool for opening new scientific horizons; indeed, it can be viewed as a form of fundamentalist science that seeks to explain the essence of things.
