Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this

Steven Foong raised a contentious concept called the "irreducible complexity". The definition of complexity depends on human perception. What seems complex to a layperson, may not be so to an expert. What seems complex in the past is no longer mysterious today.

What seems complex today may have a perfectly logical explanation in the future. It is a folly to base a theory on present level of human understanding and assume that it will never advance.

For the sake of argument, lets accept for the moment that "irreducible complexity" is a proven fact. I will demonstrate that the conclusion drawn from this assumption is logically inconsistent, therefore the assumption must be wrong.

Foong argued that the theory of intelligent design need not speculate on the nature of the designer itself. But there is at least one characteristic we can deduce about the designer/creator. The designer/creator must necessarily be more complex then its creation, otherwise, it would mean complexity spontaneously emerge from a less complex creator/designer. If the creations are "irreducibly complex", its creator/designer must be at least as "irreducibly complex".

If "irreducible complexity" proves the case for intelligent design, then there must be an even bigger creator/designer that created our immediate creator/designer. But, who created the creator? And who created the creator's creator? One can go on like this ad infinitum.

I am reminded of a story about an old lady who said that the world rests on the back of a giant turtle. A smug professor then asked her what is the turtle resting on, the old lady then replied indignantly that it was turtles all the way. Modern theory of intelligent design despite its sophistry, suffers from the same shortcomings.

Religious scholars arbitrarily put a stop at our most immediate creator. That would directly contradict the assumption of "irreducible complexity". You can't have your cake and eat it too. Unless, of course, the creator operates on a different set of rules. If we can accept an omniscient creator to exist without being created, why can't we accept the universe and everything in it to emerge spontaneously and naturally?

Another argument for intelligent design is that the universe seems to be exquisitely fine-tuned to the emergence of life. For all we know, there could be an infinite number of other universes where life is impossible or where other forms of life exist.

If one lets an infinite number of monkeys to type on a keyboard, one will eventually write Macbeth, but does that mean they are as intelligent as Shakespeare? This argument makes the mistake of making a general statement based on only one example that we know, namely our universe.

In the final analysis, it boils down to faith. Intelligent design is more faith than science. I have no qualms about people having faith in intelligent design, but please, don't pretend that it is science.