the vast majority of scientists and scientific institutions reject the claims of intelligent design by its lack of scientific basis. The National Academy of Sciences of the United States and other scientists classify intelligent design as pseudoscience. However, movements in support of intelligent design have been raising political mobilization in the U.S. with supporters, advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in education programs as if it was a theory alternative to evolution. These are the same sectors that have fought long, with varying success by suppressing the teaching of biological evolution or the introduction in parallel with the biblical cosmogony. Thus the intelligent design movement is described by the scientific community only as an organized campaign to promote the ideology of intelligent design to the general public, especially in the United States, driven by the Discovery Institute and the Center for Science and culture, indicating that although the arguments are presented as a secular movement, intelligent design is associated with conservative Christianity and creationism. A famous scientist Francisco J. Ayala supports the thesis that there is no necessary contradiction between science and religious beliefs. The reason is that both try different issues that do not overlap. According to Ayala, both may be supported by the scientific theory of evolution of species and believe in the existence of a creator, personal and provident. In other words: the scientific concept of evolution does not deny the metaphysical and theological notion of creation from nothing, or vice versa, as described in Does Intelligent Design Explain Life’s Origin and Evolution?
Further I would like to consider the counter-argument of the critics of intelligent design. As a fact, these arguments can be summarized as the idea that life is only possible because the universe behind it. The statement about the improbability of a universe that sustains life also has been criticized by calling it an argument of lack of imagination to assume the impossibility of the existence of other life forms. Life might exist only under different conditions. Some critics also suggest that many of the parameters that define our universe are not mutually independent, improperly presented and mathematical calculations show that the emergence of a universe similar to ours in terms of opportunities to produce complex systems and forms of life is actually quite probable. Consequently, the possibility of life in those dimensions may only under same conditions. Similarly, if other conditions are not really allow the sustenance of life, this does not mean that there really is intelligent design, because even if the probability was against the lives of millions of times one is only a mathematical probability that rule out the possibility of creating life without a divine source, since it does not completely exclude that occurred in right conditions (well-tuned universe) for life, despite the enormous odds against hypothetical. Others argue that the universe is as finely tuned as people think. Science agrees that the emergence of life was a random and extremely unlikely event. However, this probability is greater than zero. Neither the universe shows a supposed order that allowed the existence of life, nor life is so perfect. Organisms evolve from their ancestors and past retain features that are no longer used, harmful to their survival characteristics, and so on, as stated in Some Objections to Intelligent Design.
Critics of the argument of irreducible complexity point out that this argument is fallacious because neither the eukaryotic cilium or the bacterial flagellum, or any other complex structure appears evolutionarily once. It is important to remember that many biological structures go through stages of dual function, which, having evolved to use, begin to be subjected to new selective pressures for a second use. If we look only in the latter, the origin of the organ can become incomprehensible. The nature of the human hand grasping appeared in connection with an arboreal life, has been used by countless species of primates for the manipulation and, with this second function, the group has become the human biological adaptations of its features. As for the evolution of complex molecular machines, such as the eukaryotic cilium, recent decades have already provided many of the arguments equivalent, although in this case we have no means of comparison as appropriate, because there is not any eukaryotic not have cilia or derived from an ancestor ciliate. The molecular components of cilia are present outside them, in the superficial cytoskeleton adjacent to the plasma membrane, where they work in mobility without such elaborate form structures and their components are homologous forms even in prokaryotes. The same goes for the bacterial flagellum, whose molecular components stored homology with other functional components of the cell and, in varying degrees with each other, probably having worked first in a much more simple, like ion pump before becoming more complex locomotion.
As for the argument of specified complexity, critics say that in itself it makes the definition of the argument is a tautology, since it would run the information specified complexity (ICE) does not occur naturally, just because Dembski described it well. So the real question is whether there are instances of ICE in nature, a fact that can not really explain or answer Dembski, because it specializes in development and / or related topics. Thus, the conceptual coherence of the argument of Dembski ICE is strongly disputed by the community Critics argue that this procedure does not qualify as a model for scientific inference because the asymmetric shape that is the possible alternative explanations, making it susceptible to obtain false conclusions. Also at the biological level, despite the vast amount of nucleotides that form DNA, which forms the genome with its “complex and specific nature”¯ is in the process described in the modern evolutionary synthesis, its nature is actually produced by the “random genetic mutation”¯. It explains the natural processes involved in the evolution of living things tend to accumulate positive change, and discard negative changes in the DNA. Since this is the real reason that leads to the genome of living in a “natural”¯ over the generations have changed and even switch to a nature which is defined as more complex and specific. Concerning the Wedge strategy, the scientific community indicates that this argument is just the strategy of this organization that really tries to instill a religious non-scientists, which aims to promote and pseudoscientific belief called intelligent design creationists, and this does not recognize the scientific discoveries that support the existence of evolution through the modern evolutionary synthesis, as described in Intelligent Design ”“ It’s Just Evolution in Disguise.