This blog post examines the debate between science and religion, evolution and creation, focusing on 『Intelligent Design』.
It is no exaggeration to say that religion, like science, has existed since the dawn of humanity. And like science, it has developed its framework over time and expanded its influence. However, if the pre-Christian era was a ‘Spring and Autumn Period’ where numerous religions gradually gained followers, then the roughly 1,700 years following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ—according to Christian doctrine—and especially after Christianity was officially recognized as the state religion in Rome in the 4th century, it is no exaggeration to say Christianity has effectively led the religious world. Of course, Islam has the largest number of adherents when considering a single religion. However, in countries leading the global scientific community, most people are Catholic or Protestant. Furthermore, Christian doctrine itself often conflicts with science (such as the former geocentric model and creationism), so science primarily engages with Christianity.
The conflict between religion and science is one of the enduring major debates in human history. Religious beliefs emerged as early humans sought to explain natural phenomena, gradually systematizing into religious doctrines. Meanwhile, scientific inquiry has persistently sought to uncover the laws of nature through experience and experimentation. In this context, religion and science have often collided and created conflict. The conflict between Christianity and science was particularly pronounced in medieval Europe and remains a significant social and cultural issue to this day.
Evolution is a theory, yet its influence on the scientific community is so profound that it is accepted as virtually established fact by most scientists. However, when evolutionary theory debuted in academia, creationism was already firmly established as the accepted doctrine. Unlike the geocentric model, which collapsed completely due to concrete evidence, creationism still maintains a powerful presence, arguing that there is no perfect evidence for evolution. Evolutionary theory and creationism have been locked in a confrontation without any compromise for 150 years since the mid-19th century when evolutionary theory was first presented.
‘Intelligent Design’ is an inquiry seeking to determine whether the subject of investigation is an ‘intentional entity’ or an ‘accidental entity’. While an entity possessing intent is termed an ‘intelligent entity’, it does not, in fact, rely solely on the Bible for its approach, as creationism does, nor does it take a purely metaphysical stance. Author William A. Dembski critiques Darwinian evolution from a scientific standpoint, arguing that something evolution cannot explain is instead a meticulously crafted design by some intelligent being. He does not explicitly state here that this intelligent designer is ‘God’. Of course, he himself clearly believes this to be the case.
The concept of ‘irreducible complexity,’ specifically presented in Chapter 5 of Intelligent Design, best explains the theory of intelligent design. It states that a system composed of several interconnected parts is said to be irreducibly complex if removing even one part causes the system to completely lose its function. A mousetrap that fails to function properly if any one part—the lever, hammer, spring, latch, or pin—is removed is presented as an example. But is the mousetrap analogy truly appropriate for explaining the structure of the human body?
As explained by evolutionary theory, organisms did not possess their current perfect structure from the beginning. Genes advantageous for survival emerged through mutation and were preserved by the ‘law of survival of the fittest’. Did the first humans or other early life forms possess all the organs with the same functions as those in modern organisms? My answer to this is no. It is unlikely anyone would claim that the organs possessed by early humans could perform all the functions that the organs of modern humans can.
Let’s also consider the concept of ‘specified complexity’ emphasized in intelligent design. This theory posits that structures that are both clearly defined and complex could never arise by chance. However, this book fundamentally tends to overemphasize the effects of chance. In reality, even just over the past few thousand years, life forms, including humans, have undergone significant development and evolution. And all of that occurred by chance. Yet Earth’s history spans a staggering 4.6 billion years, and the history of life, including microorganisms, reaches 3.6 billion years. No one would claim that chance events are unlikely to occur over such vast spans of time. The French mathematician Émile Borel presented the Infinite Monkey Theorem in his papers. Its premise is that a monkey randomly typing on a typewriter would almost certainly, given enough time, produce every book in the French National Library. Of course, this remains nearly impossible even over an incredibly long period, but the theory highlights how difficult it is to dismiss the probability entirely. However, I believe the probability of life’s origin and evolution is at least as high, if not higher, than that of a monkey making an exact typewriter hit. Unlike a monkey that must start over if it makes a typo mid-book, living organisms allow for error correction: if one makes a typo (fails to evolve or degenerates), it is eliminated, while the one that types correctly (evolves) survives to type again.
In the Korean film ‘Bungee Jumping of Their Own’, the protagonist Seo In-woo says: “If you stuck a tiny needle anywhere in this world and scattered a single speck of wheat from the sky, the probability that it would land on that needle… That’s the probability, beyond calculation, that you and I met.” If everything happened solely by necessity, there might be nothing left on Earth by now. It is not desirable to view every coincidence as design by an intelligent being. The relationship between religion and science has always developed amid tension and conflict, and through this process, humanity has broadened its knowledge and understanding through deeper questions and exploration. The debate between these two will continue, and it will play a crucial role in humanity’s self-understanding and exploration of the world.
