May I make some observations concerning Peter Barnes' letter headed "Intelligent Design" in the March issue?
In Darwin's time it was proposed that if anyone should find a pocket-watch in a field he would readily conclude it was designed by an intelligent person and not the product of blind chance.
Modern science has discovered some of the inner workings of the simple cell, which is basic to all forms of life. It has been described as more complex and more perfect than anything ever made by man. Because of the interdependence of its parts it is impossible for the cell to live in an incomplete or imperfect form, so that the cell cannot have come into existence by any gradual evolutionary process. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that it is the product of intelligent design.
One of the most common objections to Intelligent Design is the slightly questionable assumption that the Intelligent Designer could not design anything which is beyond the understanding of Man, or which would not meet with his approval. For example if, for instance, I am unable to understand fully parts of Mr Barnes' letter it is possible that the shortcoming may lie with me and not with him, the intelligent designer of the letter.
Finally may I say that, since scientists generally are very shy of identifying the one and only candidate for the position of Intelligent Designer, I think it is Almighty God.