Here in Kansas, the topic of Intelligent Design (ID) has been getting quite a bit of publicity recently. As a supporter of quality science education, it should come as no surprise that I have some major issues with ID. It may surprise you, however, to learn that the theological issues are just as serious as the scientific ones.

One of the issues I have with ID as an explanation of biological complexity is that it fails to explain obvious structural imperfections like those found in the human eye. If ID is used to describe how complex structures like the human eye originated, it must also account for the imperfections found in these structures. For instance, humans are especially susceptible to a problem called retinal detachment. This problem occurs because the sensory and pigment layers of the retina are not physically attached to each other. When the sensory layer gets torn, the vitreous gel inside the eye can seep into the space between the two layers of tissue and cause the sensory cells of the retina to be pushed out of position. This condition causes serious visual distortions and sometimes leads to blindness.

How does evolution account for these imperfections? It is important to remember that evolution is a process that must work with what is already there. Unlike the design process, the raw materials and physical limitations for biological structures are dependent on what already exists. For the most part, evolutionary changes are slight, successive modifications that change preexisting biological structures over time. As a result, evolution leaves behind evidence of its material limitations in the structures it produces.

When pressed, the only answer that ID promoters give about these biological imperfections is "one cannot speculate about the motives or intentions of the designer." For most scientists, that kind of answer is, to put it nicely, intellectually dissatisfying.

If the human eye is the product of intelligent design, its imperfections suggest that it must be a prototype, not a finished product. To some, these imperfections might suggest that the Intelligent Designer was careless and/or inept. To others, it might appear that the Intelligent Designer was interested in causing pain and suffering in the organisms possessing these flawed designs. Still others might conclude that the Intelligent Designer was simply trying to fool us into thinking that a blind process like evolution has actually occurred. None of these conclusions are attributes I would like to see associated with the loving and all-powerful God.

Scientists freely acknowledge that there are many intriguing questions about the origin and subsequent evolution of life on earth. Indeed, these unanswered questions are what motivate scientists to keep searching for answers. When faced with such perplexing challenges, promoters of ID would apparently like scientists to give up further investigation.

But the history of science demonstrates that persistence pays off. Where would we be if yesterday’s perplexing challenges had been attributed to design? What if scientists had concluded that the disease we call AIDS was so complex that it must be the result of intelligent design? What if scientists threw up their hands and shouted “the intelligent designer did it” every time they were faced with a puzzling dilemma? Would humans be better off? Personally, I would prefer not to find out.