Abstract
The debate between evolution and intelligent design is usually presented by evolutionary biologists as a clash between science and non-science (creationism and religion) and therefore as a sterile argument which science wins by default. Countering this is intelligent design (ID) and irreducible complexity (IC) which posit that the diversity and complexity of life on earth indicates the hand of a designer, although the nature of that designer is not speculated on. In doing so, proponents of ID and IC bring the argument squarely into the scientific camp and fulfil the requirements of being science, although this is difficult to define. Here, we discuss the claims of ID and IC to provide an alternative to evolution and propose that science can adequately deal with and refute these claims. At the same time, ID and IC fulfil an important role as foils to ‘scientism’ – the belief that science is the best way of answering all questions. In the final analysis, however , despite their value in the debate, ID and IC are not found to be robust or reliable enough to replace evolution as the best way of explaining the diversity of life on earth.
Highlights
The debate between evolution and intelligent design is usually presented by evolutionary biologists as a clash between science and non-science and as a sterile argument which science wins by default
Countering this is intelligent design (ID) and irreducible complexity (IC) which posit that the diversity and complexity of life on earth indicates the hand of a designer, the nature of that designer is not speculated on
ID and IC fulfil an important role as foils to ‘scientism’ – the belief that science is the best way of answering all questions
Summary
Science and religion are apparently in a death lock, at least in the school houses and court rooms of the U.S.A. The judgement made by Judge Jones III and the comments of scientists who uphold evolution as ‘correct’ i.e. as a paradigm, both construct the challenge to the credibility of ID as a straightforward clash between religion and science – between ‘revealed truth’ and ‘empirical evidence’. To clarify what is meant by the apparently oxymoronic ‘proven theory’ it is worth quoting the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould (1983:254) at length: Well evolution is a theory. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. In science ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent’
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
