Is order in nature evidence of intelligent design?

(LR: Jonathan Esteban, Quintin Abat, Ernest Sy, Gelo Yap, Charade Castro, Chris Schoof)

15 May 2008. The debate was on whether the interconnectedness found in nature was evidence of intelligent design, by which we understand that nature was designed by a Designer, who we do not necessarily identify with God.

Government (Castro, Sy, Abat) argued that the interconnectedness of living and non-living systems on earth implies purpose in all of the components that comprise the systems, of which food chains, biological structures, and geologic cycles are examples. By analogy, a structure such as a watch is so intricately structured and interconnected that the only explanation for how that structure came to be is that it should have been designed. Clearly the watch was made by an intelligent man. Similarly, when one observes such intricately balanced structures in nature, the intricacy is so complex that one must postulate the existence of an intelligence that designed those interrelations. The existence of a Creator is implied.

Opposition (Schoof, Esteban, Yap) argued that though complexity may have been designed, it is not evidence for it. Evolution, for example, provides an explanation to explain order. Thus, we need not attribute complexity to the action of an intelligent will that provides direction or purpose.

It was on the question of whether purpose implied intelligence that this whole debate seemed to rest.

The Government’s case is that interconnectedness itself implied purpose, and purpose implied intelligence. However, what seem to be purposeful arrangements in nature may simply be mental constructs. The Opposition pointed out that humans have the peculiar habit of creating these constructs to understand their world.

But, the fact that a purposeful relationship is a construct does not mean that it does not exist in reality. That, however, is just the point. If you can’t see what it really is, then how can you prove or disprove its very existence? What the actual purposes of things are, whether they are intelligently given purposes or not, is ultimately unfalsifiable, which makes the theory of intelligent design unscientific.

The theory is unscientific in another way.

Let’s take the example of the human eye, broached by the government. This structure is so complex that it is hard to imagine that it could have arisen by random mutations alone. But, opposition pointed out that even if the eye may be very complex to us, in the language of nature the eye might actually be something rather simple. In any case, it is not perfect.

But the absence of perfection is not proof that there is no intelligent designer, because he may be acting slowly. Neither is the trial and error of evolution proof of his inexistence, because the intelligent designer might choose to work by trial and error. Thus, because of his freedom, his existence can not be falsified. This unfalsifiability puts the theory of intelligent design outside of science.

This does not mean that there is no intelligent designer. There is one, as Government pointed out using the 5th proof of St. Thomas Aquinas for the existence of God. But his existence is demonstrated in philosophy and not in science.

Thus, both groups are correct. It just depends which field—science or philosophy—they are addressing.

This was a very difficult debate that saw both groups receiving high points from the audience.