What Is Intelligent Design? — Science and God

What Is Intelligent Design? — Science and God

What Is Intelligent Design? — Science and God

2009 Posts



Chances are if you’ve heard anything about intelligent design, you’ve heard that it’s faith-based, not science-based. Is that true? Or does modern science, in fact, point us in the direction of a designing intelligence?

🚨 PragerU is experiencing severe censorship on Big Tech platforms. Go to https://www.prageru.com/ to watch our videos free from censorship!

SUBSCRIBE 👉 https://www.prageru.com/join/

📲 Take PragerU videos with you everywhere you go. Download our free mobile app!
Download for Apple iOS ➡ https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/prageru/id1115115779
Download for Android ➡ https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cappital.prageru

To view the FACTS & SOURCES and Transcript, visit: https://www.prageru.com/video/what-is-intelligent-design-science-and-god

📳 Join PragerU’s text list! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru

SHOP! 🛒 Love PragerU? Visit our store today! https://shop.prageru.com/


Chances are if you’ve heard anything about intelligent design, you’ve heard that it’s a “faith-based,” not a “science-based” idea. Or maybe you’ve even heard it’s “religion masquerading as science.” 

Is that true?

Well, why don’t you decide?

According to evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, living systems “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” But that appearance is merely an illusion.


Well, according to Dawkins and his followers, undirected processes such as natural selection and random mutations can produce the intricate design-like structures in living systems. In their view, natural selection can mimic the powers of a designing intelligence without being guided or directed in any way. 

In contrast, the proponents of intelligent design argue there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by a designing intelligence.

So what tell-tale signs of intelligence are we talking about?

There are many. But let’s focus here on just one—the digital code stored in the DNA molecule.

In 1953 James Watson and Francis Crick mapped out the structure of the DNA molecule. Along the interior of their famed double helix, they discovered a four-character code at work.  

They soon realized that sequences of precisely positioned chemicals called “nucleotide bases” store and transmit the assembly instructions—the information—for building the crucial protein molecules that cells need to survive. No protein molecules, no life. 

Crick later proposed that the chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or digital symbols in a computer code. 

Just as a well-functioning computer code depends upon precise sequences of zeros and ones, so too does the function of the DNA molecule depend upon the specific arrangement of chemical bases along the spine of the double helix. 

Famed biotech specialist Leroy Hood describes the information stored in DNA as “digital code.” Even Richard Dawkins has acknowledged, “the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.”

But where did this information, this digital code, come from? Today this question lies at the heart of a great scientific mystery: the mystery of the origin of life. 

Building a living cell requires many proteins. And building proteins requires genetic information in DNA or some other equivalent molecule.

Yet to date no theory of undirected chemical evolution can explain the origin of the digital information needed to build the first living cell from simpler non-living chemicals—in other words, the problem of getting life from non-life.

Why is this a problem? There is simply too much information in the cell to be explained by chance alone. The probability of generating a section of DNA code capable of building just one functional protein by chance is vanishingly small, even taking into account the multi-billion-year history of the universe. And even the simplest living cells require hundreds of proteins.

Thus, the “given enough time anything is possible” argument no longer works. Origin of life researchers agree: the chance hypothesis has failed.

Chemistry doesn’t help us, either. Unlike basic chemical compounds, like a crystal of salt, the chemical letters in the DNA message do not arrange themselves as a result of mutual attraction.

Saying otherwise would be like saying that the message in a newspaper headline could spontaneously emerge because of the way that ink sticks to paper. Clearly “something else” is at work. In this case, a newspaper editor.

For the complete script as well as FACTS & SOURCES, visit https://www.prageru.com/video/what-is-intelligent-design-science-and-god


47 thoughts on “What Is Intelligent Design? — Science and God

  1. clifford sy


    "So who made youtube?"


    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  2. Daniel Martinez

    The scientific method requieres empirical evidence to generate knowledge. As far as I know, there is no empirical evidence that proves a creator. In conclusion, intelligent designs is not science, it is just a guess.

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  3. Tom Barry

    Complexity proves complexity. If there was a designer, it doesn’t answer questions it brings up an infinite number of new questions

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  4. NJ CardFan

    Simply put, there's too much complexity to simply be by accident. I mean, look at the platypus.

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  5. Paul Stout

    Trash is what it is

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  6. joelt2002

    You don't even have to go into life. There are physical laws. Laws suggest organization. Causation. Fate. These all exist, else we couldn't exist. The universe wouldn't exist as it is. This doesn't necessarily indicate intelligent design. I think it is foolhardy to dismiss intelligent design as so many would be intellectuals do. At the same time there are only patterns, which humans are very good at perceiving. Why is there order and chaos within the universe? Why does life seem to fight against and counteract entropy which the universe is seemingly spiraling along to? We are limited by what we know and what we don't know. A caveman may prescribe a flash light to magic. And cavemen could argue over that, but really the other cavemen would have a hard time providing an alternative argument to magic. Does that mean magic is the correct theory for how the flashlight works? It's an easy answer, thus it "solves" the question for the time being.

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  7. Geo Bla

    If the chance of building one random protein is an impossibility , then whats the chance of building over a 100 specific purpose proteins required to transcribe , translate and build other proteins which are mandatory for the simplest of living cells ? Absolute Zero! It's incredulous that many conclude that randomness can have the foresight , insight and intelligence to create the 100's of codes required , the processors needed to both read and then translate it and finally the machinery to build purpose specific proteins needed for life in the simplest of cells. There's certainly more then enough science now showing the sequencing of these exponential impossibilities required to create a simple cell by random flukes as completely fallacious. This leaves those that choose to support the origins and evolution ideologue no choice but to endlessly explain away the evidence and apply minimal science with mysticism to conjure explanations needed to advance their beliefs.

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  8. evizoli

    Again, I call bullsheet.

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  9. Old Man Waterfall

    DNA is similar to digital code,
    Digital information arises from intelligence,
    Therefore life was intelligently designed.

    This is bad logic and not science.

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  10. James Christian

    Anytime someone says “intelligent design,” just remember if that is true the designer made our air hole the same as our food hole and the hazard of chocking. Like how inefficient is that, millions maybe billions of humans and other creatures have died chocking to death because an “intelligent designer.”
    Or how our cells can mutate and make cancerous masses. Or we can have genetic defects. Or that we grow old with cell deterioration. All of this doesn’t seem intelligent to me.

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  11. aeolisticwill

    I guess it's that time for the creationist to trot out the same arguments that have been debunked over and over again, and it will get trounced again, and they'll ignore it again, and then they'll wait to rinse and repeat. And yes, Intelligent Design is just rebranded creationism, the Dover trial proved that beyond any shadow of doubt. They literally just took a Creationist handbook and replaced the word Creationism with Intelligent Design. They will habitually group together evolution with abiogenesis because the origins of life are considerably harder to study than how it changed over time, especially when you can't just invoke a magical timeless being. And anyone that knows anything about the systems in the Human body knows that most of them were just repurposed to perform other functions, often not nearly as well as if it had been Inteligently designed with humans as the goal from the beginning. If an intelligent being designed us from the start to be human (in his image) that designer was a moron.

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  12. Kenpachi Zaraki

    This is a garbage argument that has been debunked various times. Even if there is some kind of "cosmic designer" (which there is zero evidence for) where did the designer come from? Creationism isn't science. Sorry.

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  13. Frank Laureano


    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  14. PinHedMcgee

    This is like a cute fan fiction, pretty close, and congruent with the “plot points” but it’s not quite there

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  15. technoguy

    For everyone saying this is a fallacy or he doesn't address science and stuff.. go watch his youtube, he has published papers and he is a scientist himself. He goes indepth about DNA, and stuff.
    Pager U to known to make very short vids so its dishonest of you to make a criticism of him without knowing nothing about him
    2)the most common argument here is "who designed the designer".. that's a infinity fallacy. There is something called first cause meaning desginer of the desginer can't go on forever and it a BS argument. And its illogical cause time has a beginning so anything which created the universe is out of time itself so it doesn't even have a beginning to be created.

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  16. Hugh-John Fleming

    It just makes sense…

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  17. Adrian Łęgowski

    With this kind of materials we want to convince people already convinced of intelligent design or address doubts? What is the point? If there is a person that does not accept "intelligent design" you cannot convince him/her by saying "you see? You don't know how to explain that, therefore – intelligent design". It will not work…

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  18. Bad At Pseudoscience

    The problem is that evolution by natural selection is not unguided. The mutations that provide an advantage remain and the ones that don't are pruned out. That's the guidance mechanism. There is even a field of computer science called genetic algorithms. The algorithms can construct solutions complex problems using the same principles as evolution.

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  19. Patrick Kay

    There is no way to test the legitimacy of intelligent design, thus being a pseudoscience

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  20. positron haberdashery

    Are you idiots going to sit here and listen to this? Both Delta and omicron are mutated versions of a virus and it replicates a lot better and it's easier to contract now. This is evolution in action. COVID-19 has become more resistant

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  21. positron haberdashery

    I can't believe this idiot can be making these stupid arguments. We know for a fact that hydrogen can turn into helium in stars he just sneaks in but it's too complicated for it to just happen. It did happen

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  22. positron haberdashery

    This is so stupid. When living things die they become chemicals. Not that hard to understand

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  23. positron haberdashery

    So creationism came before intelligent design even though it's the same thing. Creationists you used to try to use the Bible. We know that humans haven't existed for that long. We know that we are primates we know the Bible is b*******, All Prager you is trying to do is confuse you cuz you don't know any better. It's disgusting they know better

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  24. positron haberdashery

    This is so stupid when anybody starts to approach science from an elementary perspective. Science is talk to them with analogies but that's all they are is analogies. These are biochemical reactions

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  25. positron haberdashery

    Again, it's not really a code. This is a fallacy from analogy. It is biochemical reactions

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  26. positron haberdashery

    Even creationist and intelligent design proponents believe in natural selection. They even believe in speciation
    I can't believe they have the guts to put the crap out

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  27. positron haberdashery

    Yes, it's bottom up. It's called emergent complexity. Not that hard to figure out

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  28. positron haberdashery

    All intelligent design is a new form of creationism

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  29. Jennifer Bailey

    One other point: information is not information without an interpreter (interpreting mechanism) right? So, evolutionists suggest that both the information and the interpreter arose spontaneously at the same time….

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  30. sniperammow

    This is not a great explanation

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  31. Walker One

    Outstanding presentation..

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  32. Feorge not Gloyd

    There is no intelligent design. We simply evolved to live in the area we are set in.

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  33. Martin Nicholson

    Why does PragerU muddy the waters by supporting theoractic nonsense when they're supposed to be about supporting liberty and free markets? You are turning off millions of liberty supporters who don't associate liberty with religion and theocracy.

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  34. Alistear

    These idiots can't even get intelligent design right… Natural selection can absolutely function without guidance. Evidence of this is everywhere. Natural selection implies that nature selected the appropriate design. If nature is built by the intelligence then natural selection is the easiest method of creation.

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  35. Poli Incredible

    Don’t be a science denier; accept Christ.

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  36. Nick te Lindert

    To be honest Intelligent Design does not give us any answers. The argument here is that a complex system can not come from nothing because it is too complex. But a more complex being like God as an answer does not solve the issue… Because of the same reason, it is also too complex to come from nothing. The most logical thing is: life started out simple and became more complex over time. As far as how everything got started the most honest answer right now is "We don't know".

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  37. Smoked Brisket

    what is the response to people who will accuse of this being either post hoc fallacy, or begging the question?

    this is not a gotcha. i agree, there are some significant problems in the theories of abiogenesis and thus in evolution. It starts with the chirality of DNA, and the difference between the r-side and the s-side

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  38. Zari Zeni

    I see a few problems:
    – we cannot measure intelligence without a subject
    – science cannot explore a subject, only objects
    – DNA is full of (useless?) trash, not so ideally designed
    – who invented diseases? there is death (in every cell)
    – intelligent design is an assumption, not a conclusion.

    So, ID is faith-based opinion.

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  39. Conor Corrigan

    Modern-day Creationism is one of a line of peculiarities of American Protestantism, not the least of which are snake-handling, Televangelism and Mormonism. Catholicism may not be perfect but at least we aren't Baptists…

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  40. Conor Corrigan

    What Is Intelligent Design? A legal fiction invented by weasels to smuggle in creationism after it became illegal to teach "creation science".

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  41. Fred Flores

    Outstanding presentation, thank you an intelligent and mindful illustration.

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  42. Svampis

    I think he wants you to be a Christian.

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  43. Gondwana Ape

    Intelligent design is a superstitious delusion , it has no mechanism

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  44. jordan washington

    Just because there is an observable structure for reality, means that it wasn't cultivated intentionally.

    How can anyone confidently claim, the immune system that keeps the body free of malicious organisms doesn't help the body stay functional so the lungs can oxygenate the blood to spread nutrients to organs so organs can function so muscles can stay active so cells can reproduce, so our eyes can see and other senses can function to maintain life. Why not have more eyes, why have each bodily function , correspond with each other?

    What is the overall "objective" goal life hopes to achieve, if not simply intentional.

    Scientifically, the universe wants things in its simplistic state( entropy reference) so why would the conventions of biology feel that fighting that principal and maintaining life structures( even though they all will die) is a reasonable goal to work towards.

    Nothing in the universe stays the same state forever until it is reduced to it's most basic, and or stable, form. That doesn't represent living things at all.

    So why is life trying so hard to fight the inevitable premise of death in the universe?

    What makes this concept justified in its attempt to fight the everlasting force of time?


    Maybe? Idk

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply
  45. Rirand Weavo

    If there was a universe that existed without a designer, how would it behave? Would it exhibit natural laws? Would it be a total mess? Would it look like our current universe?

    December 31, 2021 at 3:56 pm Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.