A Criticism of the “Intelligent Design Argument”

The term “Intelligent Design” (also known as Teleological argument) refers to a view or argument often put forward to prove that there is a creator of the Universe. In this post we are not trying to refute its final claim, but we shall criticize the argument itself by showing that it (the argument) is not logically adequate to prove the existence of any intelligent designer.

The Intelligent Design argument says - the universe is so precisely designed for us to exist that this is impossible to be just an accident. Hence it is claimed that there must be an intelligent designer who has created the universe in this way.

The first part of this argument is of course correct. Our universe is very precisely configured. The laws of Physics are just the way they should be. The physical constants just have the perfect values. Even our earth is at a very suitable distance from the Sun (i.e. otherwise it would be too hot or too cold for life to exist). The configuration of the universe as a whole rests on such a knife edge that any slightest change in the way it was created would make our existence impossible.

Once again, saying that our universe seems to be very precisely designed for our existence is a claim that cannot be denied. There can be countless examples given to its support. So we all agree on this. But there remains an important question about the second part of the argument.

Although the universe is precisely designed for us to exist, was this designing done intentionally? Or was it just an accident? The supporters of Intelligent Design argument will say that this cannot be an accident, because an accident cannot result that much precision. And here is where the weakness of Intelligent Design theory lies.

Suppose someone buys a glass cup form the market. After reaching home he / she stumbles at the doorstep. The cup falls down and breaks into pieces. Now let us consider a certain piece of the broken glass. If its particular shape is considered we can say it is very precisely designed. We can say the person who bought the cup has very cleverly bought the right cup, with right ingredients, stumbled just at the right time, in a right way, so that the cup has fallen at the right place of the ground, in a perfect angle and with perfect speed, at a specific orientation (and we can go on…) so that that perfect piece of broken glass was created in a precise way. So following the logic of Intelligent Design argument we can say that the owner of the cup deliberately designed the broken piece of glass in a particular fashion. While actually it is clear that the creation of that particular broken piece of glass was just an accident.

From the example above, it is quite clear that any accident like this can later be described as a planned or designed incident if it is described as such. Therefore, our perfectly designed universe might as well be an accident.

Actually there are an infinite number of ways the universe could have been configured. It is not strange that one of these configurations will support life. Why we live in a particular configuration which is perfect for us to live? Because that is the only place we can live. As simple as that. We don’t need any intelligent designer to justify the perfect design of our universe.

In the conclusion, the Intelligent Design theory is based on a wrong premise. Precision of the universe doesn’t guarantee that it was not just an accident. Hence the theory fails to prove what it intends to. And the argument is futile.