Darwin and ID

It is often thought that the ‘intelligent design movement’ is a 21st century invention by creationists. This is clearly not the case.

Even Darwin recognised the argument. He wrote in his autobiography: ‘When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look at a first cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man …’

The meaning of ‘design’

The word ‘design’ is often used in popular presentations even by atheistic evolutionists, but clearly must have a different meaning to that normally understood by us. In contrast to modern evolutionists, Darwin recognised that the issue centres around an intelligent Designer. This concept should be one to unite creationists and theistic evolutionists, but strangely it has aggravated the situation.

Biblical creationists would argue that, since God is the Creator and the biblical record describes his clear planning of the world, we should see evidence of design in this world around us. From that standpoint, we can expect to see such evidence. It does seem, as Darwin acknowledged, undeniable.

Intelligent design movement

There is a movement, initiated in the USA, which has recognised the presence of intelligent design (ID) in the world and has sought to identify a scientific method of recognising this.

Expressed simply, they seek to determine whether a structure or process can be explained by natural laws. Failing that, can it be interpreted by the principles of chance. If neither of these established scientific approaches can be recognised, then we can legitimately classify the result as intelligent design. (Of course, the detailed arguments are more rigorous than this simple explanation.)

The biblical creationist not only approaches it from the opposite end of the argument (because we believe in the divine Designer we expect to see design), but we see all three processes (natural laws, chance and design) as under the intelligent Creator’s control. Also, the ID movement, being a scientific approach rather than a biblical one, does not attempt to identify the Intelligent Designer and various members of the movement have different and conflicting ideas on this.

Eye problems

Darwin acknowledged having a problem with the proposed evolution of the eye: ‘To suppose that the eye … could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree’ (On the Origin of Species, John Murray; 1859, p.186).

His successors have sought to solve this problem with theories as to how this process could be achieved. One approach was by Nilsson and Pelger, who studied the eyes of the cephalopods and showed a sequence which could be tied into a story of change over time. Such ‘just so’ stories do not prove that such a sequence of evolution actually occurred and they do nothing to solve Darwin’s dilemma. Essentially they only produce a story that might explain the sequence of changes in shape. They did not produce the underlying genetic story of how this might occur. They did not explain the origin of the retina, a hugely complex structure. They did not explain how the brain was able to interpret the visual signals. Darwin’s problem remains.

The peacock’s tail

Another example that puzzled Darwin was the peacock’s tail. How could that evolve to satisfy the mating needs of the peahen? In terms of flight, it might be argued that this huge tail is a hindrance.

He wrote to Asa Gray: ‘The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me feel sick’(in F. Darwin (1911), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin; Appleton & Co.; vol.2, pp.90-91).

One wonders how he would feel now that we know so much more about the intricacies of the detail of the tail feather. Prof. Stuart Burgess has studied the detail and written on it. Again there are a number of factors, but we can concentrate on one aspect: the ‘eye’ in the tail and its structure. This is situated at the end of the feather and consists of at least four concentric coloured formations. These formations differ in shape, but each conforms to a very precise mathematical function. The ‘eye’ is imprinted on the barbs that extend from the stem. From each of these there are many smaller barbules which ‘hold’ the colour. To give the coloured arrangement, each barbule has to have a different colour arrangement, but each has to be integrated exactly with the others. To increase our amazement, there are actually no pigments present. The colours are produced by refraction of light within the barbules and this results from the detailed crystalline arrangement therein. And that is a simplified explanation. What an example of intelligent design.

Darwin’s candour

In contrast to the attitude of many modern Darwinists, one is impressed with the candour of Darwin on these matters. I wonder what he would say if he had the knowledge that we have today?

He acknowledged: ‘If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down’ (On the Origin of Species, 6th edition, pp.149-152).

That challenge still stands.

John Peet

© Evangelicals Now - May 2009
Please consider supporting this ministry by subscribing.