Questions & Objections

Words such as information, code, transcription, translation, editing, and proofreading are common in molecular biology.

But does this language describe something objectively present in the cell, or are scientists simply borrowing convenient metaphors from human communication and computers?

If biological information is only a metaphor, an argument for design based upon information could appear to rest upon the language used to describe DNA rather than upon the biology itself.

Evolution by natural selection can preserve beneficial genetic changes and eliminate many harmful ones.

Over generations, mutation and selection can therefore alter genes and produce new biological functions.

If natural selection can increase functional biological complexity, why invoke design to explain biological information?

Human codes are created by minds. Computer languages, Morse code, written alphabets, and other symbolic systems originate through intelligence.

Since biology uses the term "genetic code," does that fact itself demonstrate that the biological system was designed?

Nature produces organized structures without intelligent intervention. Lipids can assemble into membranes. Molecules can form ordered structures. Chemical networks can display feedback and autocatalytic behavior.

If information-processing systems can likewise emerge through self-organization, does this remove the need for a design explanation?

The genetic code is not absolutely universal or unchangeable. Variants occur, and researchers have proposed evolutionary histories for the standard code.

If the genetic code evolved, does that contradict the claim that biological information bears evidence of design?

Science does not yet possess a complete historical reconstruction of the origin of biological coding and translation.

Critics therefore argue that Intelligent Design simply places a designer into what science has not yet explained. If future research fills those gaps, would the design argument disappear?