Which explanation is better? Intelligent Design or Natural Processes

For the purpose of discussion, I am willing to grant your premise (we can recognize design in the non-biological realm).

However, I listed several questions that, in my opinion, need to be answered before your conclusion can be granted.

If my questions are indeed “special pleading,” it should be a very simple matter for you to answer them in a straightforward and obvious manner. I invite you to do so.

All the more telling that it hasn’t been.

1 Like

emphasis mine. convincing to you, of course…

Galileo’s observations were not convincing to his contemporaries, as I understand the history… but that hardly means that his observations were not indeed empirical and scientific… and correct.

But granted, what is convincing to me may well not be convincing to you, but sure, i have seen many, many examples that demonstrate to my satisfaction aspects of biology that empirically demonstrate intentional or purposeful design as the most obvious explanation rather than unguided natural processes.

Alternately, I might similarly respond by noting, that I similarly have never seen a “convincing” example of Darwinian evolution that has been observed, placing discussion of Darwinism in the philosophical or speculative realm rather than the scientific…

as for good examples… By chance, have you ever read Meyer’s first book book Signature in the Cell? Or Behe’s first book, Darwin’s Black Box?

Any example? Covid-19. Random variation + natural selection yields delta. What would it take?

development of a new organ or new organelle in an organism, resulting in a bona fide new species entirely… not the examples of microevolution that no one, Ken Ham included, would dispute.

So what doesn’t? And what is the design of your satisfaction by empirical demonstration?

Fair enough. I have read portions of those books, and they are smart people, but the examples of irreducible complexity ultimately are God of the Gaps arguments and most have been since been better understood than before, filling in the gaps.
Truthfully, I would not expect a convincing example to ever be found, as Jesus indicated that the sign of Jonah was all that would be given or need be given for faith to flourish.


Microevolution is all a mesoscopic creature can ever hope to see, within species. It explains macroevolution, without ‘hopeful monsters’ mutating above species level (which may yet occur, neoteny included), as accumulation of microevolution beyond species which compete above the organismal level contributing further to macroevolution.

Fair enough, but can we agree that this is a religious objection to ID at this point? I.e., rejecting ID in favor of traditional Darwinism due to religious or biblical reasons?

At what point, though, does it become what one might call a “materialism of the gaps”….? To use Meyer’s case study in “Signature…”. Hypothetically, how many decades, centuries, millennia, of research would the scientific establishment have to conduct on origin of life… how many dead ends must they find, how much research that comes up empty, in trying to present a realistic naturalistic pathway that life could have arisen without direct intelligent intervention, until we grant even some legitimacy to the design hypothesis?

At what point might my suspicion become legitimate, that people are maintaining belief that life must have began by naturalistic professes in spite of the empiric data?


Reasonable people often disagree on what they find convincing. The books on my shelf by Meyer and Behe are interesting and thought provoking, but ultimately I do not find their arguments convincing.

You may not find whale evolution convincing, but I think the fossil record for the transition of terrestrial to aquatic adaptation to be progressive and complete enough to offer a window into evolutionary pathways through novel environmental niches. I find the genetic evidence - overall genetic similarity, chromosome fusion, phylogeny of the inactivated vitamin C gene, patterns of ERVs and olfactory gene loss - to be incontrovertible evidence in favor of common ancestry of primates and in keeping with anthropology. These examples certainly involve new species.

Overall, the nested hierarchy is an essential attribute of common descent, but arbitrary at best for intelligent design. It is not just the development of new organs, but just as significantly, the constraint imposed by common descent which defines the nested hierarchy. New organs or functions are arrived at by modification of the morphology and physiology of existing organisms, which is why bats are clearly mammals, and they as well as birds and Pterosaurs all have modified tetrapod features in distinct ways to enable flight. To have wings, it was necessary to sacrifice arms; only angels are vertebrate hexapods. Features are not added willy nilly just because they would be nice to have, they must be attainable by evolutionary means. For the history of life on land that is what we see. What happened before left little record beyond atmospheric and oceanic composition reflected in mineralization. Our not knowing how it all started, though, does not diminish our understanding from the fossil record forward.


This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.