How Supposed 'Unintelligent Design' Points to God

One of the most persistent objections to Christianity—and theism more broadly—centers on the idea that the universe, and life itself, could not possibly be the product of an intelligent Creator. This objection typically asserts that evolutionary biology, natural selection, and abiogenesis offer sufficient explanations for complexity and design, rendering God both unnecessary and implausible.

Recently, I engaged with someone who, in response to a video discussing intelligent design, raised several key points that deserve a thoughtful reply. They argued that the notion of a designed universe mischaracterizes both evolution and intelligence itself. They claimed that intelligence is an emergent property, not something that preexists or designs. They further argued that comparisons between DNA and computer code are flawed and that the gaps in science do not constitute evidence for God.

Let’s take these one at a time.

1. Is Intelligence Merely Emergent?

Yes, intelligence is commonly understood to be emergent—from the brain, from evolution, from billions of years of selection. But that’s only if we start with a materialist assumption. Suppose instead that intelligence is not something that arises from matter, but that matter is something understood only within mind. This is not a new idea—Descartes himself suggested that everything we know exists within the mind of God. The mind of God, being eternal, is the source of all intelligence.

This is what the Lord says: “Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who draws strength from mere flesh and whose heart turns away from the Lord.”

— Jeremiah 17:5 (NIV)

If all that exists is physical and emergent, then even our own sense of logic, morality, and identity are illusions. But if they are not—if we trust our rationality, our minds, our consciousness—then we are already assuming something more than matter. And if our minds are real, they must reflect a greater Mind from which they came.

2. Evolution and Design: Competing or Complementary?

One of the strongest claims made was that natural selection is sufficient to explain biological complexity. I don’t entirely disagree—but what strikes me is that even when scientists try to replicate the origin of life in a lab, they always have to act as intelligent agents. When we try to create RNA self-replicating molecules, we set up controlled environments, finely tuned reactions, constrained inputs. In other words: the only way we can imagine life forming is by using intelligence to simulate it.

So the irony is this: when we try to show that intelligence is unnecessary, we have to be intelligent to do it. We ourselves become the intelligent designers in our experiments. That’s not a coincidence. That’s a signal. It testifies to a deeper order—an intelligent Logos that underlies creation itself.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

— John 1:1-5 (NIV)

3. Functional Proteins and the Vastness of the Search Space

In my own lab experience, I’ve seen firsthand how difficult it is to generate functional biological molecules. We simulate antibodies to bind to cancer targets, yet even small changes in amino acids can result in complete dysfunction. Most mutations lead to nonviable forms. The number of possible protein combinations is so vast that the fraction of functionally useful ones is astronomically small. The fact that we somehow “landed” on functional proteins, metabolic pathways, and cell machinery is a statistical miracle—unless there was a Mind behind it.

Could this have emerged over billions of years? Possibly. But to say “it’s possible” is not to say “it’s probable.” And when the probability is so close to zero, we are again faced with the same reality: either the universe is uniquely and miraculously ordered for life—or it is a statistical absurdity we pretend makes sense because we’re here to observe it.

4. The Problem of Fine-Tuning

Then there’s the fine-tuning of physical constants. Our universe is governed by a delicate set of parameters—gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear force—that, if altered slightly, would render life impossible. The Anthropic Principle is often invoked to dismiss this: "we observe a life-permitting universe because if it weren’t, we wouldn’t be here." But that’s not an explanation. That’s just a tautology.

It makes far more sense that the universe is the product of an Intelligence who intended life to exist. The order, the harmony, the structure—all of it is the language of a rational Mind. And historically, that is precisely how the scientific revolution began: under the conviction that a rational God created a rational world that could be understood by rational creatures made in His image.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

— Romans 1:20 (NIV)

5. Faith and Reason Are Not Enemies

One objection that came up is that religious scientists are “cherry-picking” their own data or misinterpreting research. But that assumes that science must always be in tension with faith. In reality, some of the most brilliant minds in history—Kepler, Pascal, Newton, Faraday, Mendel—were devoutly religious and saw their scientific work as a way to glorify God.

The claim that “science cannot disprove God” is true—but so is the converse: science cannot prove that God doesn’t exist. The absence of physical proof for God is not evidence of absence—it’s evidence that God is not a physical object. He is the grounding of being itself. That is why you must seek Him not only with microscopes but with the heart.

This is what the LORD says, he who made the earth, the LORD who formed it and established it—the LORD is his name: ‘Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know.’

— Jeremiah 33:2-3 (NIV)

Conclusion: From Chaos to Cosmos

To call the universe “unintelligently designed” is to take for granted the very laws that give you the ability to reason about it. The order we see in biology, chemistry, and physics is not random noise—it is structure, balance, and beauty. Our minds are not accidental—nor is the moral law within them. All of it reflects a Designer.

So the next time someone says, “we don’t need God to explain the universe,” I invite them to look closer. The more you study the universe—the more you see how fragile life is, how tuned the cosmos must be, how rare and unlikely rational thought truly is—the harder it is to believe it’s all just an accident.

The heavens still declare the glory of God.

The heavens declare the glory of God;
    the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
    night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no words;
    no sound is heard from them.
Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
    their words to the ends of the world.

— Psalm 19:1-4a (NIV)