Perakh, a professor of Mathematics and Statistics of California State University, Fullerton, in his critical article «Intelligent Design or Blind Accident? «A clash of Two Worldviews» expressed the opinion that many biochemical systems described by M. Behe are characterized by excessive complexity. If so, it can be explained either by the result of the chaotic uncontrolled events’ sequence, or by the irrational design. In the absence of evidence that the complexity of the system is irredundant, this complexity is more likely to indicate a blind incident than the rational design. However, I believe that M. Perakh is also wrong in this aspect. It is not the excessive complexity that is observed, but the minimal complexity capable of the function’s provision.
Many biochemical systems described by M. Behe are not characterized by excessive complexity; they are the rational complexity necessary to perform certain complex functions. These difficulties are not excessive, but rational.
Rukhlenko I. A. (Рухленко Илья Александрович) (Dean of the faculty of ecology of Volzhsky University named after V. N. Tatishchev) in his two-volume book «What is the Answer to the Darwinist?» gives practical advice to people who have skepticism towards the modern theory of evolution, but are engaged in verbal disputes with sticklers for Darwinism. The author explains in detail that they should respond, if they refer to the following:
1) Palaeontological; 2) molecular genetic; 3) comparative anatomical; 4) embryological; 5) bio-geographical «evidences of evolution». Especially considered in detail the examples of observed evolution, based on the empirical void. They are unacceptably few and most of them are not examples of evolution. In addition to the of «evidences of evolution» criticism, the book covers a large number of facts related to different areas of biology that contradict the concept of natural evolution, and explains them by means of the Intelligent design’s different theories. The analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the Intelligent design’s theory compared to the theory of natural evolution is provided. The conclusion is that it is the concept of continuous creation that successfully explains most of the biological facts today.
The «Intelligent Design» movement’s leading representatives, working for the «Discovery Institute» non-profitable public organization, consider it as a scientific theory, according to which certain features of the Universe and life are best explained by an intelligent first cause and could not occur as a result of natural processes without conscious control. Intelligent design argues that there are enough evidences in nature that life and nature are the result of a thoroughly thought-out design plan. Nature can be treated more as a result of preliminary planning, but not as a simple adaptation’s consequence.
Books dedicated to the Intelligent Design «The Signature in the Cell», «Darwin’s Doubt» (S. Meyer), «Undeniable» (D. Ax) and «Darwin on Trial» (Ph. E. Johnson) are published in significant circulations and are sold well. However, works dedicated to this problem are not accepted by the peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. The «Intelligent Design» concept does not find recognition as a scientific theory and is considered as pseudoscience in the vast majority of American scientific organizations.
The «Intelligent Design» movement’s leading representatives work for the «Discovery Institute» non-profitable public organization based in Seattle (USA). It supports the promotion of the introduction of the creationist anti-evolutionary beliefs in the US curriculum along with generally accepted scientific theories. In 2005, the «Kitsmiller against Dover School District» lawsuit’s verdict was that the directive to teach Reasonable Design as part of natural science subjects as an alternative to the evolutionary theory contradicts the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The «Intelligent Design» is not a scientific theory and has a religious nature served as the basis for such a verdict.
Within 2001 to 2010, the Discovery Institute staff collected about 700 scientists’ signatures under the «Scientific Disagreement with Darwinism» thesis to show that there are many scientists who disagree with the so-called Darwinian evolution. This thesis says: «We are skeptical of statements about the random changes and natural selection’s possibility to be responsible for the complexity of life». This resolution has led to several campaigns aimed at showing the level of the evolution in the scientific community’s support, including the «Scientific Support for Darwinism», which collected more than 7 thousand signatures in four days. It should be noted that such issues are not resolved by the vote of people who do not have in-depth knowledge on this issue. The propaganda of the theory of the «Intelligent Design» in order to justify the divine creation of life fundamentally contradicts science and harms the development of mankind, as any other religion does.
1.7. OUTSTANDING SCIENTISTS AND THINKERS’ DOUBTS
Many thinkers at various times thought about the complexity of the origin of the surrounding world on Earth. They realized that there were a lot of inexplicable facts and phenomena that may be associated with the highly developed intelligence’s activities. The ancient Greek philosopher Anaxagoras, observing the expedient arrangement of the world, came to the idea of a «supreme intelligence». Socrates and Plato also saw evidences of the existence of a supreme intelligence in the structure of the world. «The world is too complicated to occur by chance». M. Bakunin wrote the following about it: «The great philosophers from Heraclitus and Plato to Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel, if not to mention the Indian philosophers, wrote heaps of volumes and created systems as witty as sublime in which they in passing revealed many beautiful and great things and discovered immortal truths, but also left this mystery, the main subject of their transcendental research, as impenetrable as it was before them».
Many thinkers associated the complexity and thoughtfulness of the world with religious beliefs, when all facts unexplained by science were associated with the divine power. Other scholars, understanding all the theological views’ mysticism and savagery, spoke about the role of the creative principle, about the Creator participation, the abstract Supreme Intelligence or Creator in their statements about the world’s structure.
V. I. Lenin is attributed the following statement: «If nature is creation, it goes without saying that it can be created only by something which is greater, that is more powerful than nature. To be created from something that already exists, since in order to create nature, something should already exist independently of nature. So there is something existing besides nature and, moreover, it is something that creates nature. It is called God in Russian».
The points of view of mankind’s prominent personalities are more powerful than the views of ordinary scholars repeating orthodox truths learned from the student bench. I am pleased to realize that they correspond my beliefs. So I decided to cite some of them. Theologians used all these statements to strengthen their power over the minds of gullible believers. Some of them are taken from the book by Ivan Klimishin, a professor of the Carpathian National University named after Vasily Stefanik, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, titled «Scientists Find God», as well on the following sites: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lists of creationist scientists; https:// www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1AOHY ruUA792UA816 amp; e i = 6thbXLycD9H5kwXFuI D4CA amp; q = great + scientists + about + and
+ creationists amp; oq = Great + scientists + about + and + creation amp; gs l = psvab.1.0.33i22i29. 2267.14336…16918… 0.0…0,158.1143.1lj2
…0,… l…gws-wiz……0i71j0i22i30i 19j0i22i30j33i10.BhONC u5TpY; https://www.pravmir.ru/velikie-fiziki-o-vere-i-boge/ The desire to find a supernatural explanation for creation in the distant past was well expressed by Giordano Bruno: «We seek God in the unchanging, unshakable law of nature, in the reverential mood of the soul governed by this law… in the true reflection of His essence, in countless constellations glowing on the invariable space of a single sky…».
Georg Lichtenberg noted many years after that: «Is our concept of God not the personification of the incomprehensible,» and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz argued that «only the trivial throats of scientific knowledge alienate
