I’ve heard a lot about “intelligent design” recently. What is the difference between it and “creationism”?

What’s the evidence for intelligent design? First, a word must be said about the interpretation of evidence. The way a person examines any evidence is filtered through his or her worldview. Philosophers of science admit that there really is no such thing as a completely neutral observer. This is important to understand because a naturalist and an intelligent design theorist can look at the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions because of their prior philosophical commitments. Let’s take bacterial flagellum as an example. Bacterial flagellum functions like a rotary propeller. It’s equipped with propeller, drive shaft, universal joint, bushings, fueled by a flow of acid and spins at ten thousands revolutions per minute. Even more amazing is that the propeller spinning at ten thousand rpms, can stop at a quarter turn and immediately start spinning in the other direction. The flagellum measures about 1/20,000 of an inch. Howard Berg of Harvard University has called the flagellum the most efficient motor in the universe. Now a naturalist looks at the flagellum and says, “My, look what happened naturally by blind random chance”, but an ID theorist looks at the flagellum and says, “Look at how well this has been designed by an intelligent designer.”

But what’s more, Biochemist Michel Behe says that the flagellum (along with many other organisms) is irreducibly complex. Behe states that the flagellum is a very complex organism, “but” he says, “at a minimum you need at least three parts—a paddle, a rotor, and a motor—that are made up of various proteins. Eliminate one of these parts and you don’t get a flagellum that only spins at five thousands rmps; you get a flagellum that simply doesn’t work at all.” Behe’s point is that you can’t have a paddle and then a million years later add a rotor and a million years later add a motor. All of those complex components must be in place and in working order all at the same time in order for the flagellum to survive.

The same case can be made with even the simplest cell. One scientist described a single-cell organism as a high-tech factory, equipped with “artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction.”  As smart as we humans are, we can’t even begin to build a small complex machine like a single living cell and yet we are expected to believe that this highly specified complexity happened by random chance? And I haven’t the space left to discuss the complexity of the DNA code.

In all of this the naturalist may object that the introduction of design is unscientific. But they need to be reminded that the inference of design is a part of normal rational thought and a big part of many branches of science such as forensics, cryptography, archeology and the SETI program (search for extraterrestrial intelligence). Much more could be said about this, but this much is clear; the universe does not seem to lack for the evidence of a designer, but it maybe lacking in interpreters who will just allow the evidence to speak. (The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Psalm 19:1)