Robert Todd Carroll
Intelligent Design
...the odds against DNA assembling by chance are
1040,000 to one [according to Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space,1981]. This is true,
but highly misleading.
DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by
a combination of chance and the laws of physics. Without the laws of
physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in
the short span of six billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind
protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep
atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting
ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth.
--Victor J. Stenger*
... rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence
of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability
of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion.
Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully,
calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and
then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very
improbable. --John Allen Paulos, Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its
Consequences
Intelligent design is nothing more than creationism
dressed in a cheap tuxedo.
--Dr. Leonard Krishtalka, director of the University
of Kansas Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center
Intelligent Design (ID) refers to the theory that
intelligent causes are responsible
for the origin of the universe and of life in all its
diversity.* Advocates of ID maintain that their theory is scientific and provides
empirical proof for the existence of God or superintelligent aliens. They believe
that design is empirically detectable in nature and in living systems.
They claim that intelligent design should be taught in the science classroom because it
is an alternative to the scientific theory of natural selection.
The arguments of the ID advocates may seem like a rehash of
the creationist arguments, but the defenders of ID claim that they do not
reject evolution simply because it does not fit with their understanding of the
Bible. However, they present natural selection as implying the universe could
not have been designed or created, which is nonsense. To deny that God has the
power to create living things using natural selection is to assert something
unknowable. It is also inconsistent with the belief in an omnipotent Creator.
One of the early-birds defending ID was UC Berkeley law
professor Philip E. Johnson, who seems to have completely misunderstood
Darwin's theory of natural selection as implying (1) God doesn't exist, (2)
natural selection could only have happened randomly and by chance, and (3) whatever
happens randomly and by chance cannot be designed by God. None of
these beliefs is essential to natural selection. There is no inconsistency
in believing in God the Creator of the universe and in natural selection. Natural
selection could have been designed by God. Or, natural selection could have
occurred even if God did not exist. Thus, the first of several fallacies committed
by ID defenders is the false dilemma. The choice is not either natural selection
or design by God or some other superintelligent creatures. God could have
designed the universe to produce life by random events following laws of nature. God
could have created superintelligent aliens who are experimenting with natural
selection.
Superintelligent aliens could have evolved by natural
selection and then introduced the process on our planet. There may be another
scientific theory that explains living beings and their eco-systems better
than natural selection (or intelligent design). The possibilities may not be endless
but they are certainly greater than the two considered by ID defenders.
Two scientists often cited by defenders of ID are Michael
Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press, 1996), and William
Dembski, author of Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology
(Cambridge University Press, 1998). Dembski and Behe are fellows of
the Discovery Institute, a Seattle research institute funded largely by Christian
foundations. There arguments are attractive because they are couched in
scientific terms and backed by scientific competence. However, their arguments are
identical in function to the creationists: rather than provide positive evidence for
their own position, they mainly try to find weaknesses in natural selection. As
already noted, however, even if their arguments are successful against
natural selection, that would not increase the probability of ID.
Behe is an Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh
University. Behe's argument is not essentially about whether evolution
occurred, but how it had to have occurred. He claims that he wants to see "real
laboratory research on the question of intelligent design."* Such a desire belies his
indifference to the science/metaphysics distinction. There is no lab experiment
relevant to determining whether God exists.
In any case, Behe claims that biochemistry reveals a
cellular world of such precisely tailored molecules and such staggering complexity
that it is not only inexplicable by gradual evolution, but that it can only be
plausibly explained by assuming an intelligent designer, i.e., God. Some systems,
he thinks, can't be produced by natural selection because "any precursor to an
irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition
nonfunctional (39)." He says that a
mousetrap is an example of an irreducibly complex system,
i.e., all the parts must be there in order for the mousetrap to function. In short,
Behe has old wine in a new skin: the argument from design wrapped in biochemistry.
His argument is no more scientific than any other variant of the argument from
design. In fact, most scientists, including scientists who are Christians, think
Behe should cease patting himself on the back. As with all other such
arguments, Behe's begs the question. He must assume design in order to prove a
designer. The general consensus seems to be that Behe is a good scientist and
writer, but a mediocre metaphysician.
His argument hinges upon the notion of "irreducibly complex
systems," systems that could not function if they were missing just one of
their many parts. "Irreducibly complex systems ... cannot evolve in a
Darwinian fashion," he says, because natural selection works on small mutations in just
one component at a time. He then leaps to the conclusion that intelligent
design must be responsible for these irreducibly complex systems. Biology professor
(and Christian) Kenneth Miller responds:
The multiple parts of complex, interlocking biological
systems do not evolve as individual parts, despite Behe's claim
that they must. They evolve together, as systems that are
gradually expanded, enlarged, and adapted to new purposes. As
Richard Dawkins successfully argued in The Blind Watchmaker,
natural selection can act on these evolving systems at every
step of their transformation.*
Professor Bartelt writes
if we assume that Behe is correct, and that humans can
discern design, then I submit that they can also discern poor
design (we sue companies for this all the time!). In Darwin's
Black Box, Behe refers to design as the "purposeful arrangement of
parts." What about when the "parts" aren't purposeful, by any
standard engineering criteria? When confronted with the
"All-Thumbs Designer" - whoever designed the spine, the birth
canal, the prostate gland, the back of the throat, etc, Behe and
the ID people retreat into theology.* [I.e., God can do whatever He
wants, or, We're not competent to judge intelligence by God's
standards, etc.]
H. Allen Orr writes:
Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these
possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one
does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built
gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous,
become-because of later changes-essential. The logic
is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not
very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it
helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves
things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way
that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as
further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day,
many parts may all be required.*
Finally, Behe's argument assumes that natural selection
will never be able to account for anything it cannot account for now. This begs
the question. In fact, some of the things that Behe and other ID defenders have
claimed could not be explained by natural selection have in fact been explained
by natural selection.
Dembski
William Dembski (Intelligent Design: The Bridge between
Science and Theology, 1998) is a professor at Baylor University.
Dembski claims that he can prove that life and the universe could not have happened by
chance and by natural processes; therefore, they must be the result of
intelligent design by God. He also claims that "the conceptual soundness of a
scientific theory cannot be maintained apart from Christ (209)," a claim which
belies his metaphysical bias.
According to physicist Vic Stenger in "The Emperor's New
Designer Clothes," Dembski uses math and logic to derive what he calls the law
of conservation of information. "He argues that the information contained in
living structures cannot be generated by any combination of chance and
natural processes....Dembski's law of conservation of information
is nothing more than "conservation of entropy," a special case of the second law
[of thermodynamics] that applies when no dissipative processes such as friction
are present." However, the fact is that "entropy is created naturally a
thousand times a day by every person on Earth. Each time any friction is generated,
information is lost."
pseudoscience
ID isn't a scientific theory and it isn't an alternative to
natural selection or any other scientific theory. The universe would appear the same
to us whether it was designed by God or not. Empirical theories are about how
the world appears to us and have no business positing why the world appears this
way, or that it is probably designed because of how unlikely it is that this
or that happened by chance. That is the business of metaphysics. ID is not a
scientific theory, but a metaphysical theory. The fact that it has empirical content
doesn't make it any more scientific than, say, Spinoza's metaphysics or
so-called creation science.
ID is a pseudoscience because it claims to be scientific
but is in fact metaphysical. It is based on several philosophical
confusions, not the least of which is the notion that the empirical is necessarily
scientific. This is false, if by 'empirical' one means originating in or based on
observation or experience.
Empirical theories can be scientific or non-scientific.
Freud's theory of the Oedipus complex is empirical but it is not scientific.
Jung's theory of the collective unconscious is empirical but it is not
scientific. Biblical creationism is empirical but it is not scientific. Poetry can be empirical
but not scientific.
On the other hand, if by 'empirical' one means capable of
being verified or disproved by observation or experiment then ID is not
empirical. Neither the whole of Nature nor an individual eco-system can be proved
or disproved by any set of observations to be intelligently or
unintelligently designed. A design theory and a natural law theory that makes no reference to
design can account for Nature as a whole and for individual eco-systems.
Science does have some metaphysical assumptions, not the
least of which is that the universe follows laws. But Science leaves open the
question of whether those laws were designed. That is a metaphysical question.
Believing the universe or some part of it was designed or not does not
help understand how it works. If I ever answer an empirical question with the
answer "because God [or superintelligent aliens, otherwise undetectable] made it
that way" then I have left the realm of science and entered the realm of metaphysics.
Of course scientists have metaphysical beliefs but those beliefs are irrelevant
to strictly scientific explanations. Science is open to both theists and atheists
alike.
If we grant that the universe is possibly or even probably
the result of intelligent design, what is the next step? For example, assume a
particular eco-system is the creation of an intelligent designer. Unless this
intelligent designer is one of us, i.e., human, and unless we have some experience with the
creations of this and similar designers, how could we proceed to study this
system? If all we know is that it is the result of ID, but that the designer is of a
different order of being than we are, how would we proceed to study this system?
Wouldn't we be limited in always responding in the same way to any
question we asked about the system's relation to its designer? It is this way
because of ID. Furthermore, wouldn't we have to assume that since God, the Intelligent
Designer, designed everything, even us, that no matter what happens, it is
always a sign of and due to intelligent design. The theory explains everything but
illuminates nothing.
The ID proponents are fighting a battle that was lost in
the 17th century: the battle for understanding Nature in terms of final causes
and efficient causes.
Prior to the 17th century, there was no essential conflict
between a mechanistic view of Nature and a teleological view, between a
naturalistic and a supernaturalistic view of Nature. With the notable
exception of Leibniz and his intellectual descendents, just about everyone else gave up
the idea of scientific explanations needing to include theological ones.
Scientific progress became possible in part because scientists attempted to describe
the workings of natural phenomena without reference to their creation, design or
ultimate purpose. God may well have created the universe and the laws of nature,
but created Nature is a machine, mechanically changing and comprehensible as
such. God became an unnecessary hypothesis.
See related entries on atheism, the argument from design,
creationism, God, Occam's razor and theism.
further reading
reader comments
Intelligent Design: Humans, Cockroaches, and the Laws of Physics Victor J. Stenger (1997)
Intelligent Design: The New Stealth Creationism by Victor J. Stenger (2000) [pdf format]
Cosmythology: Was the Universe Designed to Produce Us? By Victor J. Stenger
Design Yes, Intelligent No A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory and Neo-Creationism by Massimo Pigliucci
The "New" Creationism by Robert Wright (Slate.com) 'Intelligent Design' Meets Artificial Intelligence by
Taner Edis, Skeptical Inquirer (March/April 2001).
Nutty Professors, or Some Addled Academics? Robert A. Baker
Baylor demotes director of Polanyi Center
Is the Intelligent Design Hypothesis Anti-Evolution?
Donavan Hall
NATURALISM IS TODAY--BY HISTORY, PHILOSOPHY, AND
PURPOSE--AN ESSENTIAL PART OF SCIENCE by Steven D.
Schafersman
A list of scientific papers which refute Behe can be found
in Publish or Perish - Some Published works on Biochemical Evolution.
There are a number of critiques of Behe's claims available
on the Internet. Here is a partial list:
A Rebuttal of Behe by Clare Stevens
Darwin v. Intelligent Design (Again) The latest attack
on evolution is cleverly argued, biologically informed-and wrong. H.
Allen Orr
A Central IL Scientist Responds to the Behe's "Black
Box" by Karen
Bartelt, organic chemist and an Associate Professor of
Chemistry at
Eureka College in Eureka, IL.
Behe's Empty Box
Darwin's Black Box Irreducible Complexity or
Irreproducible
Irreducibility? by Keith Robison
A Biochemist's Response to "The Biochemical Challenge
to Evolution" by David Ussery, associate professor at the Center for
Biological Sequence analysis (CBS) in the Institute of
Biotechnology, Danish Technical University, in Lyngby, Denmark
Review of Darwin's Black Box by Kenneth R. Miller,
Professor of Biology, Brown University
Review of Darwin's Black Box by Peter Atkins, Oxford
University
Review of Darwin's Black Box by Andrew Pomiankowski,
Royal Society
research fellow at the department of biology,
University College London
Review of Darwin's Black Box by Gert Korthof
Michael J. Behe - Responses to Critics.
There are several refutations of Dembski's work posted on the Internet.
Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? by Richard Carrier
The Triumph of Evolution...And the Failure of Creationism by Niles
Eldredge Review of: J. P. Moreland (ed.) The Creation Hypothesis
Arnhart, Larry. "Evolution and the New Creationism - a Proposal for Compromise," Skeptic Vol. 8 No. 4, 2001, pp. 46-52.
Barlow, Connie. The Ghosts of Evolution (Basic Books, 2001).
Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (W W Norton & Co., 1988).
Dennett, Daniel Clement. Darwin's dangerous idea: evolution and the meanings of life (New York : Simon & Schuster, 1995).
Gould, Stephen Jay. Ever Since Darwin (New York: W.W.Norton & Company, 1979).
Gould, Stephen Jay. "Evolution as Fact and Theory," in Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1983).
Pennock, Robert T. Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism (Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press, 1999).
copyright 2002 Robert Todd Carroll
Last updated 01/31/02
Oryginal: http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html
POWRÓT