Guest Author - Alicia Soueid

The essence of intelligent design as a theory of the origins of the universe, as well as of the accompanying proof of the existence of God, is the argument that nature exhibits irreducible complexity and ordered harmony from which we can infer the existence of an intelligent designer. The problem with this argument is that it is based on analogy, and analogy is a very weak form of argument that often leads erroneous conclusions.

I can use analogy to prove all kinds of things that don't make sense. For example, I might notice that men are like watches, computers, engines, and many other complex machines, in that men are made up many small parts that function individually and that also work together in tandem. On the basis of that comparison, I might deduce that man must be a machine. From this analogy, I might conclude that men need a source of energy or power in order to function, and I would be right. After all, men must have food, water, and air to function properly. But not all conclusions I could draw based on this analogy would be valid.

I know from personal experience that men are also different from watches, computers, and engines in several significant ways. One important difference is that men are living things, while machines are not. Another important difference is that while machines that break and stop working can often be repaired and made to function again, even after a period of several decades or centuries, men who die cannot be reanimated. And of course men are not manufactured in factories, and they do not come with warranties or instruction manuals. Thus, in spite of the apparent soundness of my analogy, some of the conclusions I could draw based upon it would be wrong.

It is important to note that common sense alone cannot help me distinguish which of the conclusions are valid and which are invalid. It is only my personal experience with men that tells me which of the qualities I infer about them from this analogy are valid (e.g. complexity, interdependency of parts) and which are invalid (non-living, possibility of reanimation). In other words, although men can be compared to machines, this analogy provides us with no useful information about the nature of man that we could not have discovered through personal experience, observation, and experimentation.

Since weak analogies like this can go wrong, it’s important to test conclusions separately before confirming them. Without personal experience of any assumed intelligent designer, however, I cannot conclude that any of the traits I might attribute to him based on a comparison with worldly creators would apply. Based on the intelligent design argument, I could easily conclude that, like human designers, the designer of the universe must have been born from its mother’s womb, and that it may have died long before its creation has stopped functioning. After all, human designers are born from their mother’s wombs, and very often their inventions outlive them. There is therefore nothing in the analogy that tells me that the presumed designer of the universe is unique or immortal. Quite the contrary, significant imperfections in nature might lead me to believe that the presumed designer of the universe is either imperfect, malevolent, or dead.

Therefore, given the lack of sensory experience between men and "God," the teleological argument for God's existence can tell us nothing conclusive about the origins of the universe or any creator assumed to have designed it. Although it might be comforting to imagine that a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent entity created the universe for mankind’s exclusive benefit, the teleological argument for God’s existence, upon which intelligent design theory is based, is too flawed to lead to any reliable conclusions.