Intelligent Design

The another well-known theory about the evolution of life is that it is designed by somebody or something (maybe a god). The overall term for these theories is ‘intelligent design’ (ID). NI agrees that it is unmistakable that in the evolution of life intelligence (in a bit other meaning) plays an important part. But that this intelligence does not include an intelligent somebody or something, but an intelligence incorporated in DNA and in the evolution of life itself. Let us see how the supporters of ID look at evolution, and the roll of intelligence and how NI stands in that. I have used ChatGTP in order to get the main themes of ID and the arguments in favour (core idea, example) and against (criticism). I added the viewpoint op NI+ExT to it.

1. Irreducible Complexity

Core Idea: Irreducible complexity is the concept that some biological systems are composed of interdependent parts that all need to function together for the system to work. Removing any one part would make the entire system nonfunctional.
Example: The bacterial flagellum, a cellular structure that functions like a motor, is often cited as an example. Proponents argue that it requires all of its parts to be present simultaneously to function, making it unlikely to have evolved step-by-step.
Criticism: Opponents argue that complex systems can indeed evolve through a process known as "exaptation," where existing parts acquire new functions over time, gradually forming complex structures.
NI+ExT: One mutation can activate one part of a biological system. This mutation can also effect other parts so they can start to function together (so called ‘package deal’). This is initiated by a focused trait that nullify obstructive traits and can make ‘useless’ traits useful, so one mutation can impact more parts in a system simultaneously. Exaptation is in my opinion not a possible explanation for this. And concerning the origine of main traits, like walking and flying, it is a very unlikely if not impossible phenomenon and so irrelevant.

2. Specified Complexity

Core Idea: Specified complexity refers to patterns that are both complex (unlikely to occur by chance) and specified (following a recognizable pattern). ID advocates argue that certain biological structures contain a "blueprint" that is too precise and purposeful to have arisen randomly.
Example: DNA, with its highly specific and complex sequences that code for life’s building blocks, is often presented as evidence of specified complexity.
Criticism: Evolutionary biologists argue that natural selection is capable of producing highly specified complexity over time, as it "selects" traits beneficial for survival, creating complex, organized structures.
NI+ExT: because the basics of traits are already present in DNA right from the start, complexity is way more easy to explain because you don’t have to start from scratch. Indeed the question remains how it is possible that these basics are present right from the start but that question is hardly more difficult to answer than the question how life could have started. And NI makes the question how over and over again new traits could appear during the evolution of life way easier to answer and more likely.

3. Fine-Tuning Argument

Core Idea: The fine-tuning argument suggests that the universe’s physical constants (such as gravity, the cosmological constant, etc.) are set at values so precise that even a slight alteration would make life impossible. This precision suggests, according to ID, an intelligent designer who set these constants deliberately.
Example: The cosmological constant, which governs the rate of expansion of the universe, is often cited because even minute changes would either prevent galaxies from forming or cause the universe to collapse.
Criticism: Many physicists counter with the anthropic principle, which suggests that we observe these constants precisely because we exist in a universe that allows life. Multiverse theories also propose that many universes might exist with various constants, making our life-supporting universe just one among many.
NI+ExT: doesn’t discuss this point because this is first and for all about the law of physics.

4. Information Theory and DNA

Core Idea: ID proponents argue that DNA’s coded information requires an intelligent source, as the information it contains is comparable to a complex language or software.
Example: The argument draws a parallel between DNA and computer code, asserting that random chance cannot produce coherent, information-rich systems like DNA without intentional design.
Criticism: Many scientists assert that DNA's structure can be explained through the process of natural selection and genetic mutation, with beneficial mutations gradually building up to create new functions.
NI+ExT: DNA codes life, DNA codes all essential functions to live and to survive, right from the beginning. Otherwise the first living cell would have died instantly. That can’t be explained by beneficial mutations gradually building up new functions. The time to do so was just not there at that moment. So the ‘criticism’ can never hold. Besides that I presented a quiet huge number of examples, motivations and articles based on research that contradicts that only beneficial mutations could give these result. The right answer? I don’t know. Obviously DNA was coded right from the start to bring life. How? Maybe there is something like a ‘law of life’ like there is a ‘law of gravity’ and is life one of the basis forces. Possibly our knowledge will grow so much in the future that some explanation will become obvious without the need of ‘coincidences’ and without the need of a ‘creator’.

5. The Limits of Natural Selection

Core Idea: ID advocates argue that there are limits to what natural selection and mutation can accomplish. They suggest that these mechanisms are insufficient to explain the emergence of entirely new, highly complex biological structures.
Example: Cambrian explosion — a relatively short period in geological history where a significant number of animal phyla appeared — is sometimes cited as evidence that complexity appeared too quickly for natural selection to account for it.
Criticism: Many scientists argue that while the Cambrian explosion was a period of rapid diversification, there are evolutionary explanations, including changes in environmental conditions, genetic innovations, and increased oxygen levels.
NI: NI can explain this on the basis of directional evolution, revolutionary evolution and the incorporation of the basics of the main traits, together with the Evolution Theory. Indeed the Evolution Theory on its own has no answers to the sudden appearance of entirely new types of species. Some quoted scientists also acknowledge this.

Counterarguments and Scientific Response

The scientific community generally criticizes ID as lacking empirical support and considers it a form of creationism. Key critiques are:

Lack of Testability: ID theories often lack predictive power and are seen as unfalsifiable, as they rely on supernatural intervention, which science cannot measure.
Lack of Peer-Reviewed Research: ID research is limited and not widely accepted in peer-reviewed scientific journals, weakening its credibility as a scientific theory.
Alternative Explanations: Evolutionary biology offers naturalistic explanations that do not rely on an intelligent designer and are supported by extensive fossil, genetic, and observational evidence.

To support NI+ExT I quoted a lot of articles in highly valued media, based on research done by highly qualified scientists. These articles can, in my opinion, be judged as a support for NI+ExT. So there is some real scientific foundation. I have not found one article that clearly makes my theory of evolution impossible or even unlikely.