Darwin's Doubt: Creationism Vs Intelligent Design

In Science Studio: Intelligent Design, host Dr. Keith Pannell and guest co-host Dr. Ricardo Bernal, both professors at the University of Texas at El Paso, explored the vast topics that encompass Intelligent Design. Interviewing the former geophysicist and author of the New York Times bestseller book Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, Dr. Stephen Meyer stated that many believe that Creationism and Intelligent Design are similar but, in fact, they are entirely different. When comparing these two ideologies, one can see that there are two critical distinctions between Intelligent Design and Creationism. First being that Creationism uses the Book of Genesis to conceive the idea of how the Earth

Staring with the comparison of Creationism and Intelligent Design, the idea that they are vastly different in their way of processing information is very evident as Creationist believe in the book of Genesis, whilst Intelligent Design uses science to backtrack throughout historical data. These contrasting views are similar to those of Theists and scientists as Theists use Biblical text to interpret the creation of Earth, whereas scientists use the scientific method in order to find a concrete answer backed with facts. The skepticism lies with Meyer’s two topics that were mentioned to prove his rationale. Coming with a similar background of both Dr. Bernal and Pannell, the idea of nano-machinery and digital code within DNA poses some questions. While yes, one can consider these small protein complexes as machinery, Meyer’s perception of nano-machinery, stating that they were only made for that one specific task, seems to go against most of scientific discoveries. In contrast, Bernal ideology, stating that protein complexes are ever-changing in order to adapt to the body, seems to line up more with current scientific discoveries. Moreover, when Meyer introduced the topic of digital code within DNA sequences, but could not back it up with factual evidence or research, it seemed to contradict his previous statement of what Intelligent Design entailed. By not having factual evidence and simply stating that they have had uniform and repeated experiences, what is it to say that they could not have altered the experiences in order to tailor them to what they were looking for? Without any evidence to back up one’s ideas, there is no way to claim an idea to be true. Overall, I do not see myself following the guidelines of Intelligent Design due to the fact that there are many inherent flaws within the system. The idea that one must have evidence to