I was watching a video on climate change where the scientist wrote that the research of his opponents made Intelligent Design advocates appear rigorous. This raised the question in my head, is Intelligent Design a rigorous science? And for that matter are their opponents rigorous scientists? I was reminded of the documentary Ben Stein made called “No Intelligence Allowed” where Ben Stein asked various Darwinists how life began. The answer from all of them was that we don’t know. This tells us not only is there no evidence for life beginning by Darwinian processes, but that there isn’t even a theory on how that would have happened. This leaves us with no conclusive theories on either side of the argument.

Do we then have to throw up our hands and say we can’t know anything scientifically about how life began? I don’t think so. There are all kinds of definitions of what science is, but however you define that word I believe that probability should be included, if nothing else to tell us the likelihood of something being true. As I’ve said before in this blog, calculating the likelihood of design or life by random mutation is relatively easy. The chance of something happening is 1 minus the chance that it didn’t happen. Therefore, the probability that life was the result of design is 1 minus the probability of it happening by chance, since that number is so small let’s use 0. 1 – 0 = 1. That means that, mathematically, the likelihood of intelligent design being true is 100%. So although we can’t say with scientific certainty that life was the result of design, we can say that it is by far the most likely option open to scientists.