Intelligent Design vs. Evolution

Just as a building serves as an absolute proof that there must have been an architect who designed the building and the construction workers who helped build the building, the same principle applies for our universe as well. There has to be a creator to something in this universe, becasue things don't just appear and disappear on a whim. Just like the watchmaker analogy in the article stated by William Paley, if we see a watch, we are quickly to analyze, in a subcontious manner, that the watch has been made by someone.

Perhaps all of the issues of intelligent design lies in the fact of the unknwon being, the inconceivable. We just simply don't know whether God exists or any other divinity for that matter, who created this universe. However, to this notion, Dr. Wernher von Braun, the Father of the American Rocket and Space Program, replies, "Must we really light a candle to see the Sun? …The electron is materially inconceivable, and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airliners through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real, while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive of Him? …The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which always will lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction."

Just by our uncertainty of the unkown should not be a rationale against the idea of intelligent design. Gratned there are many scientists who try to provide "scientific" data to prove this principle wrong and claim that evolution is correct. Simply put, it is just a known fact: that ideas and concepts require an intelligent designer. Things and ideas cannot just spring from nothingness, there must have been a creator.

Under intelligent design, there is the notion of "irreducible complexity" by Michael Behe. Irreducible complexity, as defined by Michael Behe himself is, "a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning" He is basically saying that there are certain things that have to be present in order for things to work. To illustrate this point, Behe uses the example of a moustrap, which is composed of several parts - the base, the spring, and the hammer. If any of these parts, which all serve as integral asset of a moustrap, are missing, then the moustrap would not be able to serve its function. Similarly, the world could not have funcitoned without there being an intelligent designer who created certain parts of this universe, (i.e. the base, the catch, and the spring), which people integrated together to make a moustrap.

Therefore, the world could not have created from nothingness, as everything that is created has a creator behind it who designed it.