Letter: Intelligent design has its limitations

Wednesday, Nov. 30, 2005 | 9:17 a.m.

Matthew Bernard, in his Nov. 28 letter, concludes with this sentence: "Intelligent design theorists are merely drawing the obvious conclusion." I would like to further examine the obvious.

Mr. Bernard's obvious conclusion is that the living organism known as man is so complex and complicated that it couldn't have just happened, that it needed to be designed. And it is true that man, with all of the intellect he possesses, has yet to establish how the first living organism came into being.

Another truth is that man, possessing great intellect, has designed and created things that not only rival him, but, in some aspects, also surpass him. Examples are computers that do calculations much faster and robots for assembly lines that work quicker and with fewer flaws than humans. But man has yet to design anything more complex or complicated than himself.

This, at least to me, leads to the conclusion that the ability to design is restricted; that one cannot design something more complex, thus superior to one's self.

The proponents of intelligent design use the complexity of our molecular biology and DNA research as evidence to the existence of a designer. Accepting the complexity of living organisms as evidence of the existence of a intelligent designer, doesn't that suggest such a designer is more complex than the design? And if the existence of complexity is evidence of design, wouldn't the existence of the living organism's designer suggest yet another designer?

The most obvious conclusion is that all of us have to accept that somewhere along the line something had to just happen. For the proponents of intelligent design, it is the existence of the designer. For the proponents of evolution, it is the origin of man.

Terry E Peele

Las Vegas