Examination of humans and other life forms clearly shows that the designs in nature, although marvelous, are not intelligent. They show evidence of random mutation and harsh selection—the best evidence against intelligent design and its supporters. 1 The evolution and ID theories predict very different attributes for the design of life forms. We should test those two theories as we test any others.
Intelligent designs contain no extraneous and nonfunctional components and the components are connected in a logical fashion. To expand on William Paley’s example, 2 anyone examining the design of a fine mechanical watch could see that each part served some definite purpose and that the parts were logically connected. Paley’s argument was forceful in 1802 because no one then could examine the human life form in much detail and most people found it hard to believe that random events could lead to such a marvelous organism.
Today we have both the tools to examine life forms down to their DNA code and a much higher appreciation of random variation as a design process. A significant fraction of human DNA has been found to be nonfunctional “junk DNA.” Researchers have found no logical order for the distribution of the functional DNA among the chromosomes or along a given chromosome. Such a lack of order is what random variation followed slowly by selection would produce. It can also be argued that larger structures, like the human appendix or our organs of metabolism that consume muscle rather than fat when we try to diet, are not intelligent design choices.
Humans design the most complex and marvelous products—for example, integrated circuits—using “simulated annealing” 3 processes of computer-generated random variation and selection. The simulated annealing process mimics the thermodynamic process by which crystals evolve randomly toward perfection. So the absence of intelligent design does not prove the absence of an intelligent designer: God may have elected to use evolution to design His creations.
The theory of evolution implies that the design of humans, and all other life forms, will continue to change (evolve), as do simulated annealing designs (as long as the designer lets the computer run). ID theory, in contrast, implies that the design of humans should not change. However, there is abundant evidence that humans continue to evolve.
