This blog post explores, from a philosophical perspective, whether humanity’s intelligent design was God’s intention or whether it proves humanity cannot reach God’s level.
Unlike other animals, humanity has achieved tremendous progress, and its pace is accelerating. As a result, humanity has undergone multiple revolutions to reach its current state and is now transforming nature, including itself. In the future, this pace of change will only accelerate. Yuval Harari’s ‘Sapiens’ suggests that while natural selection may have been the primary force in the past, intelligent design might play a significant role in the future. This is because scientific progress has enabled humanity to reach a level where it can reshape nature according to its own desires. This book presents three ways in which intelligent design could replace natural selection and discusses the potential of intelligent design. It concludes that a time may come when humans can no longer be called Homo sapiens. Thus, humans are transforming nature, including themselves, as they wish.
“Perhaps the difference between us and the protagonists of the future will be greater than the difference between us and the Neanderthals. At least we and Neanderthals are both human, but our successors will be beings akin to gods.”
‘Sapiens’ contains the passage above. Intelligent design posits that God (the designer) designed nature, i.e., the universe. However, if one adopts the intelligent design perspective, it raises the question of whether humans can truly reach the level of God who designed the universe. Furthermore, I wondered if humanity’s development to the point of altering nature itself might not have been the designer’s original intent. If it is true that humans will reach the level of a god in the future, there must be a point where humanity escapes divine control. Conversely, if all of humanity’s development was within the designer’s plan, humanity remains within the scope of divine control and cannot reach the level of a god. Therefore, the claim that humanity’s development is the designer’s intention can be seen as aligned with the argument that humans cannot reach the divine realm.
Before developing this discussion further, it is necessary to understand specifically what intelligent design is. Intelligent design is the perspective that nature was designed by an intelligence, presenting ‘complexity’ as the criterion for design. Because the probability of specific complexity arising by chance is extremely low, modern design theory argues that the existence of highly specific complexity is a sign of an intelligent cause. The theory of intelligent design differs from creationism. Creationism relies on a literal interpretation of Genesis or asserts various interpretations of the age of the Earth or universe as fact. In contrast, intelligent design explores whether the complexity in nature is actually designed or the product of undirected processes like evolution. Furthermore, intelligent design is not necessarily in conflict with evolution. If evolution means ‘change over time’ or ‘changes in frequency within a gene pool,’ it does not conflict with intelligent design. Even if evolution posits that all life shares a common ancestor, it remains compatible with intelligent design. However, if ‘evolution’ means that all life was created solely by mechanisms of natural selection, it conflicts with intelligent design. This form of evolutionism claims that all biological complexity can be explained by evolution alone, whereas intelligent design believes that biological complexity exists which cannot be explained by evolution.
Assuming the position of intelligent design is correct—that is, the universe was designed by an intelligent designer—was humanity’s advancement part of the designer’s intent? Regarding this, I will present three grounds for the argument that humanity’s transformation of nature is intended by the designer, and that humans cannot reach the level of God.
The first basis is that humans possess intellectual curiosity. This is evidence that the designer intended for humans to develop by exploring nature. Curiosity is one of human emotions, and emotions are something humans are instinctively born with; intelligent design would argue that these too were designed by the designer. Such emotions would have been necessary because they were advantageous for human survival. For example, human bonds and compassion likely enabled better social life. Humans were physically weaker than other animals, making survival easier in groups. Similarly, curiosity helped humanity create tools and harness nature for survival. Thus, intellectual curiosity is also a crucial emotion bestowed by the designer to aid human existence.
However, some might argue that humanity has advanced to the point where the emotions nature gave us are no longer essential. For instance, in modern society, people often seek time alone, free from interference, and desire a life of personal freedom. Furthermore, social environments have shifted us from extended family structures to nuclear families, and in contemporary times, single-person households have become increasingly common. In such individualistic societies, bonds or compassion may seem non-essential. Yet, no matter how strong or capable a person is, moments inevitably come when things don’t go as planned and frustration sets in. In such moments, having no one to lean on emotionally can lead to profound loneliness. From another perspective, recent academic research activities predominantly yield results through group efforts rather than individual achievements. For example, while Nobel Prizes were often awarded to individuals in the past, today they almost exclusively go to teams. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult for one person to deeply research multiple fields. Therefore, when experts from various fields come together, combining their respective expertise through interdisciplinary collaboration, they can achieve greater results. As these examples show, the benefits of solidarity and intellectual curiosity remain valid in modern society, and the same likely holds true for other emotions.
When the designer first created humanity, humans were likely under the designer’s control. However, assuming humanity reaches god-like status in the future, we can consider the point at which human development exceeds the designer’s control. Let’s denote this point as T1, and the point where humans attain god-like status as T2, and examine each scenario.
First, what seems implausible at T1 is the notion that humanity was under the Designer’s control prior to T1. The Designer must have had a reason for creating humanity. The human body’s mechanisms are extremely complex; one can assume there was a purpose in creating such intricate protein machines. However, if humanity’s progress did not proceed according to the Designer’s will, the Designer would have restrained humanity’s development while it was still under their control. The relationship between the designer and humans can be analogized to that between humans and robots. Humans create artificial intelligence robots that learn and evolve independently. Humans have endowed robots with the ability to develop autonomously. The movie ‘Terminator’ depicts the artificial intelligence robot ‘Skynet’ attacking humans after determining that humans might destroy it. Looking only at this film’s plot, one might think robots could escape human control and conquer humanity. However, this is merely fiction. The very fact such films are made shows humanity is already preparing for the possibility of robots escaping human control. Similarly, an intelligent designer would strive to prevent humanity from escaping its control.
In the case of T2, human thought cannot transcend the laws of the universe and thus cannot ultimately reach the level of God. The universe is governed by consistently established universal laws. For God to create the universe, God must know things beyond these universal laws. Scientific advancement has revealed that human thought is, in essence, nothing more than physical phenomena. Therefore, human thought is a result of physical phenomena, and since physical phenomena are subject to the laws of the universe, human thought cannot transcend these laws. Consequently, there are limits to what humans can conceive, leading to the conclusion that they cannot attain the divine realm. The fact that humanity’s capabilities cannot reach the divine realm increases the likelihood that even humanity’s ability to alter nature was originally designed by a divine entity.
Three grounds were presented to explain the claim that human development is the designer’s intention, assuming an intelligent designer exists. First, intellectual curiosity is innate to humans, and intelligent design explains that this too was designed by the designer. Second, the designer had a reason for creating humanity, and if humanity’s actions did not proceed according to the designer’s will, the designer would have restrained human development when it was within their control. Third, it explained that the universe is governed by consistently established laws, and human thought cannot transcend these cosmic laws, ultimately preventing humanity from reaching the divine realm. Consequently, from the perspective of intelligent design, humanity’s transformation of nature is judged to be part of the designer’s intended plan. No matter how much humanity advances, it is unreasonable to assume that humanity could become a god-like being in the future. However, the fact that much exists under divine design does not mean humans should live aimlessly or be subjugated to fatalism. Since human effort is also part of the design, I believe humans should strive their best within the laws of the universe designed by God, and leave variables beyond their control to the laws of the universe.
