top of page
Rows of Pillars

Intelligent Design -
The Real Centerpiece of Biology


Intelligent Design - The Real Centerpiece of Biology 

by Christopher Coutant ORDM

Darwin's hypothesis of evolution has repeatedly failed in the laboratory to demonstrate the large scale changes needed to create any kind of new organism. [1-5] Although small changes have been observed, no one has been able to demonstrate one instance of these small changes creating a new kind of organism in an observable and testable laboratory setting. Scientific knowledge must be testable and repeatable in order to be considered verified. Since evolution cannot be verified in this manner, due to it supposedly taking place only in ages past, evolution must be considered pseudo-science. That is, until someone actually observes a new kind of animal being created by mutation and natural selection, but so far there has been nothing of the kind. 


"To err is human...," is a line from a famous enlightenment poet, Alexander Pope. [6] This saying is certainly applicable, as this is far from the first time that the scientific community backed the wrong theory. There have been countless times when scientists made embarrassing errors, even the greatest ones in history like Einstein and Newton. 

  • As late as the 1900s, astronomers believed that the Milky Way galaxy was really the entire universe, and that the other distant galaxies where actually other universes, this was known as the island universe theory. [7]



  • As late as the 1850s, the theory of spontaneous generation was a prominent one in biology, and it held that life could spontaneously arise from non-living matter such as fleas from dust. [8]



  • In a follow up paper to his masterpiece theory of general relativity, Einstein proposed the static universe model, which claimed that the universe was eternal and infinite. However he was proven wrong after the discovery of the redshift of the galaxies and the cosmic microwave background radiation demonstrated a beginning to the universe. [9]



  • From the time of the ancient Greeks to as late as the 1800's, doctors and leading scientists believed that deadly diseases were caused by "bad air", known as the miasma theory of disease. [10]

  • Isaac Newton was certainly a brilliant mathematician and astronomer, but he had a bad habit of endorsing alchemy as a legitimate science. His search for a method to create gold caused him to consume a fatal amount of mercury, arsenic, and lead. [11]

To believe that our modern scientific community is free from error would be the height of ignorance and arrogance, but of course we all know to some degree that this is not possible. Evolution is currently a very prominent pseudo-theory in the biological sciences, even through there is a massive and growing body of data that shows a change of kind, or large-scale macroevolution is not possible. [12-17] Intelligent design theory has been proposed many times as an alternative to evolution, and it may have greater explanatory power in addition to it already having been empirically verified in the laboratory. [18]

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. [19] Intelligent design is a theory that began in classical antiquity, where the ancient Greeks were exploring nature, mathematics, and early forms of science. Great philosophers like Plato and Anaxagoras were already proposing that the universe was not created by nature but by a designing intelligence, although they may have had the wrong god. [20][21] In some literature, Socrates would reference the singular "God", even though he lived in a polytheistic society. It has been suggested that Socrates followed suite with Plato and Anaxagoras but took it one step further.


Perhaps Socrates was able to intellectually deduce there was only one God, the God of the Bible. Whether or not that is true, many of the great philosophers from that time seemed to be writing about the creation of the universe by a super-intelligent, honest, and moral mind. And they did all this without ever having read the Old Testament scriptures, or having any contact with the ancient Jewish people. Christian theology may be able to explain why the ancient Greeks were discovering intelligent design at this time, since they were the first major non-Jewish people to convert to Christianity. Because of this, it is likely that God was working in the nation behind the scenes, preparing them for the arrival of the Gospel and the apostles. 


Intelligent design is a theory that is empirically testable, meaning that it can be tested and observed. [18] Observing intelligent design requires defining the term complex and specified information, and according to the theory, this is required to identify if something has been designed by an intelligence.

Information is considered "complex" for the purposes of intelligent design if the odds of it coming into existence by purely natural means are so remote that it is beyond the universal probability bound, or 1 in 10 ^ 120. As a reference, the amount of particles in the observable universe is 10 ^ 80. So one can imagine how nothing natural, with complexity outside of the universal probability bound, will ever realistically be observed by humanity, even throughout cosmic history. In addition to be "complex", the information should be "specified."  Specified meaning that the information is set aside for a particular goal or purpose, and given a corresponding value. An example of specified is a particular set of nucleotide sequences in an DNA molecule that code for a particular protein in a human body. The information is simply "specified" as coding information telling the cells how to build the particular protein. [22][23]

By finding any piece of information that meets these two criteria, according to intelligent design theory, one can empirically know that the information originated from a mind. Although the information can be copied and have values changed over time by cellular programming, originally it must have come from some sort of mind. They know this because all information that meets these strict criteria, has only been observed to come from minds in the laboratory. No amount of tinkering or altering the forces of nature has ever generated complex and specified information, as far as any researcher has observed. 

Also intelligent design theory is falsifiable, as any good scientific theory should be. [18] If natural processes can be shown to generate complex and specified information in a laboratory setting, this would prove that intelligent design theory as it is currently formulated is wrong. But so far no researcher has even come close to demonstrating that nature can creation information. However, Dr. Eric Hedin of Biola University has demonstrated mathematically that natural processes actually cannot generate viable information, even if you give the universe vastly long ages of time. [24] All proposed instances of natural processes generating novel information have turned out to be either harmful mutations, or processes that were actually intelligently designed to create new traits. [25] 


And intelligent design makes accurate predictions where Darwinian evolution fails. [26] Some of the predictions that have come from intelligent design, and were proven correct are as follows.  

1. So-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions. [26]

2. Convergence of form and function will occur routinely in the makeup of organisms. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms. [26]

3. Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors. [26]

4. Irreducibly complex machinery will be discovered in the cells, that can have no logical precursor, and therefore all parts of the machine would have to have been formed simultaneously. [27]

Intelligent design is able to fulfill all the necessary requirements of the scientific method where evolution fails, and positively demonstrates that there is a mind behind the universe. It is also able to explain phenomena that evolutionary theory cannot, such as so-called "junk DNA" and the origin of complex and specified information. In every way intelligent design has demonstrated that it is superior to Darwinian evolution. However it remains outside of the mainstream of scientific research, even with a large amount of evidence available to the public. This may indicate that there is some serious corruption among biologists involved in Darwinian research, as they have a history of hostility toward anyone espousing belief in intelligent design, including termination and blacklisting. [28] No professional scientists should resort to such disgraceful and immoral behavior to protect their own version of the truth, even if their life's work supported evolutionary theory. A real scientist should be seeking after the truth, no matter where it leads them. 


1. Bergman, Jerry. “The History of Using Radiation to Speed Up Evolution.” Answers Research Journal vol. 14 (2021): 61–66.

2. Fabich, Andrew PhD. Celebrating Over 60,000 Generations of Creation Science by an Evolutionist. Answers in Genesis.

3. Burke, Dunham et al, “Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila,” Nature 467, 587-590 (30 September 2010); doi:10.1038/nature09352.

4. Halder G, Callaerts P, Gehring WJ. Induction of ectopic eyes by targeted expression of the eyeless gene in Drosophila. Science. 1995 Mar 24;267(5205):1788-92. doi: 10.1126/science.7892602. PMID: 7892602.

5. Klinghoffer, David. "Zombie Science: Four-Winged Fruit Fly, Eighteen-Winged Dragonfly — Two Hardy Evolutionary Icons." Evolution News. 2017.

6. Pope, Alexander. An Essay on Criticism. 1711

7. Curtis, Heber D. (January 1988). "Novae in Spiral Nebulae and the Island Universe Theory". PASP. 100:Bibcode:1988PASP..100....6C. doi:10.1086/132128. ISSN 0004-6280.

8.  Spontaneous generation. Examples & Experiments. Britannica

9. Nussbaumer, Harry; O'Keeffe, Michael; Nahm, Werner; Mitton, Simon (2014). "Einstein's conversion from his static to an expanding universe". European Physical Journal H. 39 (1): 37–62.

10. Linda Nash, Inescapable Ecologies: A History of Environment, Disease, and Knowledge (2007)

11. M.S. Lesney - Newton's Hair Chemistry Chronicles.


13. Bergman, Jerry. “An Evaluation of the Myth That “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”.” Answers Research Journal vol. 5 (2012): 1–12.

14. Answers Research Journal. Volumes 1-13

15. Biocomplexity Journal. Volumes 2010-2022

16. Journal of Creation. Volumes 1-36

17. Creation Research Quarterly. Volume 1-59 

18. Witt, Jonathan PhD, et al. "Intelligent Design is Empirically Testable and Makes Predictions." Evolution News. 2006.


20. Plato. "Laws". Book X. Dialogue Between Socrates and Protarchus. 

21. Wolf, J. (2013). Intelligent Design. In: Runehov, A.L.C., Oviedo, L. (eds) Encyclopedia of Sciences and Religions. Springer, Dordrecht.

22. William A. Dembski (2002). No Free Lunch, p. 19.

23. William A. Dembski (1999). Intelligent Design, p. 47.

24. Hedin, Eric PhD. "Information and Nature." Reasons to Believe.

25. Carter, Robert W PhD. Journal of Creation 25(2):92–98, August 2011. 

26. Luskin, Casey. "A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design."

27. Behe, Michael PhD. "Molecular Machines. Discovery Institute.

28. Luskin, Casey. "Darwin Believers Hide Fears of Intelligent Design Behind a Wall of Denial and Ridicule." US News.

bottom of page