Difference between revisions of "Intelligent design"

Revision as of 03:20, May 10, 2008

The central claim of Intelligent Design theory is that design - true design - is empirically detectable. The detectability of design in man-made objects is straightforward, non-controversial, and often intuitive. With respect to the origin and development of cosmological and biological systems, Intelligent Design theory holds that the same principles of design detection provide a logical inference of design in nature. That is, without necessarily "proving" actual intelligent design in nature, the observable material evidence provides a reasonable basis from which to infer design, and such an inference supports a legitimate scientific hypothesis of intelligent design. As such, Intelligent Design theory is a scientific disagreement with the core claim of materialistic theories of evolution such as chemical and Darwinian evolution ^[1] that the design exhibited in our universe is merely apparent design, i.e., unintelligent design caused by unguided, purposeless, natural forces of physics and chemistry alone.^[2]

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, archeology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).^[3] An inference that certain cosmological and biological features of the natural world may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.^[4]

Intelligent Design theory, like all theories of origins, is scientifically and religiously controversial. All theories of origins are scientifically controversial because they often amount to subjective historical narratives that seek to explain unobserved and unobservable singular past events that occurred many years ago and that cannot be adequately tested in the laboratory. They are religiously controversial because all religions, including non-theistic religions, depend on a particular origins narrative. Intelligent Design proponents believe institutions of science, including government agencies, public schools and universities, should strive for objectivity and academic freedom in facilitating origins teaching and research. Objectivity in the evaluation and interpretation of material evidence ensures that all evidence-based explanations for natural phenomena can be considered fairly on their respective merits, regardless of their ultimate metaphysical or religious implications. Institutions of science should promote objectivity and academic freedom, especially where minority viewpoints challenge scientific orthodoxy.

Intelligent Design and the Nature of Origins Science

Origins science is the scientific inquiry about biological and cosmological origins.^[5] Scientists investigating such origins seek to propose explanations for the direct cause of unobserved events and processes that occurred in the very remote past that can not be duplicated under presently observable conditions and that are not amenable to experimental confirmation.

Ernst Mayr

Preeminent 20th century Darwinist Ernst Mayr, billed as “one of the great shining figures of evolutionary biology” ^[6] correctly noted in his book entitled What Evolution Is:

Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented. Evolution as a whole, and the explanations of particular evolutionary event, must be inferred from observations. ^[7]

Dr. Stephen Meyer Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute

In a more detailed description of the method for investigating and explaining origins Mayr said:

“...Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science – the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.” ^[8]

Mayr's statement does not define "evolution", but his point is valid.^[9] More objectively, his statement should be that origins (whether cosmological or biological) are due to a historical process that cannot be proven . . . but must be inferred from observations. Thus the methods used to discern the cause of historical events and processes differ from those of inductive, experimental science, and inferences based on observations should not be limited only to inferences of unintelligent causation. As with other historical sciences like archeology, historical geology, forensics and cryptanalysis, origins science asks different kinds of questions and uses different methods than do inductive sciences. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates based on direct experimental observation. The historical sciences, on the other hand, use abductive reasoning that asks how certain or probable observable phenomena came to be, the answer to which often cannot be discovered through direct observation. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer fully develops this line of thought at idthefuture.com^[10]

The distinction between inductive and historical sciences is not an idea inspired by intelligent design theory. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) makes the same distinction to defend "evolution" as science.^[11] In its publication Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science ^[12], the NAS responds to the question, "How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?":

This question reflects a narrow view of how science works. Things in science can be studied even if they cannot be directly observed or experimented on. Archaeologists study past cultures by examining the artifacts those cultures left behind. . . . Something that happened in the past is thus not "off limits" for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions.^[13]

Intelligent design theorists agree; one must not take a “narrow view” of science, such that certain disciplines like archeology, the SETI project ^[14], forensics, and intelligent design are removed from the realm of science. Such disciplines propose hypotheses, and the testing of these hypotheses is often only effective by proposing competing hypotheses and objectively analyzing the evidence to determine which hypothesis correlates best with the evidence. As Carol Cleland elaborates in her paper entitled Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method, in actual practice historical researchers tend to search for “positive evidence—a smoking gun.” ^[15] Ms. Cleland explores the necessary role of hypothesis testing for scientific disciplines not amenable to classical experimental testing. Hypothesis testing by formulating multiple competing hypotheses is essential in the context of historical sciences, such as cosmology, geology, and biogenesis. According to Cleland, “A smoking gun is a trace that picks out one of the competing hypotheses as providing a better causal explanation for the currently available traces than the other.” ^[16]

Methods of Intelligent Design Detection

Design detection asks whether an effect or pattern that arose unobserved in the past is due to intelligent or unintelligent material causes. Is the pattern or effect a design or just an occurrence?

Design detection is used in a variety of sciences including forensic science that investigates the cause of a death or fire. It is also used in archeology, anthropology, cryptanalysis, copyright infringement, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence and the search for function or purpose in genetic sequences. It is key to the current debate over the origin of the cosmos and life. Are these “effects” or patterns that arose long ago the product of an intelligent or material cause? Are the effects designs, i.e., the result of intelligent manipulation, or just occurrences?

The question of causation turns on whether the characteristics of a given pattern or effect are within the capacity of the cause to which it may be attributable. Do unintelligent material causes have the ability or capacity to account for the occurrence of a replicating cell? Does Darwinism's unintelligent material causes, consisting of random variation and natural selection, have the capacity to account for the diversity of life once it gets started? To start the analysis, one should first compare and contrast the capacities of intelligent causes and unintelligent material causes and the kinds of patterns those capacities produce.

The Capacity of Unintelligent Material Causes

Unintelligent material causes consist simply of the interactions of the properties of matter, energy and the forces. These interactions are generally governed by the laws of chemistry and physics, such as the laws of motion and thermodynamics. These causes do not have the capacity to “know” the environment within which they exist and then seek to change it for a particular future purpose. In other words, as stated by evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, they lack forward looking "foreknowledge. . . only an intelligent mind, one with the capacity for forethought, can have purpose.”^[17]

Material causes are to nature as thoughts are to a dead man. The past, present and future is irrelevant to material causes for they can’t comprehend it. Unintelligent material causes are not merely blind watchmakers, they are mindless, purposeless, and meaningless. Lacking a mind, they lack the capacity to “make” anything. Unintelligent material causes can adequately account for physical systems like the occurrence of rocks, rivers, wind and rain. However, it is not clear how they account for time-dependent living systems or themselves.

The laws of motion explain that matter stays in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it. Thus, patterns produced by material causes reflect an intersection of forces which start or stop the motion of matter. An intervening warm spell that melted a glacier carrying rocks and boulders caused them to come to rest in an unsorted pattern as glacial till. Similarly, when the Mississippi River hits the Gulf of Mexico it drops a load that forms a fan-shaped delta.

The starting and stopping of matter may also be produced by interactions due to the properties of atoms, electrons and molecules. In a snowflake, the particular chemical properties of hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms at a specific temperature and pressure, necessitate that they join together and stop in regular hexagonal lattices. Crystals of salt and other minerals “grow” through the stopping of atoms otherwise in motion until the source of new material is depleted or the conditions conducive to the growth change.

With this combination of law and chance, unintelligent material causes produce patterns both random and regular. Sand dunes and snowflakes exhibit regular and periodic patterns driven by constant forces. Random patterns also arise as systems are suddenly interrupted as in the case of an auto accident or a melting glacier that drops an unsorted load.

Although material causes can move matter uniformly and also start it and stop it suddenly, physical systems generally move from states of order to states of disorder per the second law of thermodynamics.

The Capacity of Intelligent Causes

Intelligent causes produced by minds are ubiquitous to the natural world. Humans have minds, as do birds and beavers. We are also finding that cellular systems appear to have a kind of internal intelligence. The immune system consists of cells that act as forward observers that look for foreign invaders. Those observers on the front line send messages to command central that develops weapons to be used to defend against the attack.

Intelligent causes differ from unintelligent material causes in that intelligent causes have minds hooked up to input and output devices that have the capacity to manipulate unintelligent material causes for a purpose. Intelligent causes perceive the present, store the perception in memory to build experience and then process the experience and knowledge to predict what will occur in the future. Intelligent causes have knowledge that can be processed by processors to generate “foreknowledge,” while unintelligent material causes have neither. Intelligent causes also have the capacity to choose to change the future so that a desired or intended goal or purpose is achieved and to generate outputs efficient to achieve the purpose. Intelligent causes use unintelligent material causes and the stuff unintelligent material causes produce to make a bird’s nest, a beaver’s dam or an aqueduct.

Patterns produced by a mind like the dam, nest or aqueduct often reflect millions of precise starting and stopping points not found in systems driven only by the uniform motion of regular natural forces, stopped only by accidental opposing forces. Patterns produced by intelligent causes integrate starts and stops for a purpose. The integration becomes clear when the pattern is both complex and useful. The integrated stopping points are evident in the case of the nest, dam and aqueduct. But for the stopping of matter at integrated precise points, the assembly would not function as a whole. This article reflects thousands of instances where matter has been started and then stopped – integrated - to produce precise, and hopefully understandable, meaning. Unlike patterns produced by the chemical and physical necessity of matter in uniform motion, designs consist of patterns of stopping points that are integrated for a particular purpose. Minds tie events together to for a purpose. Material causes do not. When the patterns are both complex and purposeful the inference to an intelligent cause is compelling.

In the 13th Century, the famous Christian Philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, noted that systems which have a purpose either have a mind or are driven by one:

"We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end....... Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer."^[18]

Thus design detection begins with a search for purpose. If a pattern exhibits an apparent purpose, the inquiry turns to whether the apparent purpose is just an illusion. Perhaps the pattern can be adequately explained by unintelligent material causes alone. If not, then logic suggests that mind may be the more adequate explanation for the pattern.

Formal Design Detection Methodology

Formal design detection is not often used. Design detection methodology is not often employed because the human mind has an inherent capacity to distinguish between patterns arranged by a mind for a purpose and those that have not. Scientists have found that minds engage in subconscious pattern matching, which is a means of intuitively distinguishing between designs and occurrences.

Formal analysis is employed when a dispute arises about the cause of a pattern. Examples include investigations of deaths and peculiar fires that look for signs of murder or arson. Archaeologists debate over whether a rock is a rock or an artifact. Astronomers analyze radio and light waves in search of messages from alien minds. So far all of the tests of extraterrestrial radio waves for intelligence have been negative. The cause of life and its diversity are major areas of dispute as much is at stake. Religious and other world views depend on the best explanation for those events.

Formal Design Detection -- The Explanatory Filter

Dr. William Dembski is a leading intelligent design theorist, and has written several books on the subject, including Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology,^[19] and The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory).^[20] Dr. Dembski has a Ph.D. in mathematics and philosophy, and an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary. One of Dembski's contributions to the intelligent design movement is to set forth one method of detecting design, a method he describes as the Explanatory Filter.

Dembski describes his three-part Explanatory Filter together with an example of its use in a paper published at Access Research Network.^[21] In the paper, entitled The Explanatory Filter: A three-part filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from intelligent design,^[22]

Dembski found that all formal design detection methodologies can be reduced to three logical steps in what he refers to as an explanatory filter. The filter first asks whether a given pattern is best explained by some chemical or physical necessity or law? If not, can it be explained by chance. If chance and necessity can’t explain the pattern, does it exhibit a “specification” or apparent purpose? If a complex pattern reflecting the integration of numerous stopping points does exhibit purpose and can’t be explained by chance or necessity, then the scientific, logical inference to the best explanation is design.

Informal Design Detection Methodology

Intuition, Common Sense and Confirmation

An inference of design first springs from intuition – subconscious pattern-matching that alerts the mind to a pattern that reflects a purpose or pre-existing intention. We see knives in the back of dead man and intuitively start looking for a mind that arranged the event – a suspect. If the data are strong enough common sense causes us to follow up on that lead, not ignore it. Common sense reflects a judgement about the most prudent of a set of possible choices. If the evidence leads toward design, then common sense suggests an exploration of the lead in an effort to confirm or disconfirm it.

Therefore, at a basic level design detection is a matter of common sense, an intuitive determination we all make based on our everyday experiences with intelligently designed things. The intuitive, common sense approach is the primary method used by scientists such as archaeologists. No one expects an archaeologist to provide a rigorous "proof" that a pot or sculpture found in the ground is the result of an intelligent being. The archaeologist may not know who made the pot or why (and usually has no way to find out), but the fact of intelligent design is rarely in question. As in a similar concept of attaching intelligent agency to an event in law, we can rationally say res ipsa loquitur, or "the thing speaks for itself". There is no principled reason to ignore the common sense approach when it comes to living biological systems. We may not know who made living systems or why, but the fact of intelligent design can be easily and intuitively grasped.

William Paley

Perhaps the best example of the common sense approach to design detection was that put forth by William Paley in his famous "watchmaker analogy". William Paley (July 1743 – May 25, 1805) was a British theologian and philosopher. He used the watchmaker analogy as an argument for the existence of God in his book Natural Theology. Paley states his analogy:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.

Scientists who hold Darwinism dogmatically object to the common sense approach, not based on the fact of design, but on the metaphysical implications of considering true, intelligent design. Attempting to conflate the "what" of design with the "who" in biological systems is the tactic of those philosophically opposed to a supposed supernatural designer, i.e., those who fear a "divine foot in the door" of science. But such fear should not be tolerated by true scientists; design can be detected independent of any inquiry into the identity of the designer. Imagine archeology being rejected as science because there is absolutely no way to identify the designer of a clearly designed pot; such notions should be rejected by true scientists. Permitting the logical, common sense inference of intelligent design in the face of material evidence of design should be expected of honest scientists.

Evidence for Intelligent Design in Nature

Phillip Johnson, Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law, Emeritus

Virtually all scientists, including evolutionists,^[23] observe design in nature. Fossils exhibit design. Living body plans exhibit design. Micro-biological features such as DNA exhibit design. The evidentiary question is not a question of the existence of design in nature, but the cause of design in nature.

Only two causes are available to explain the design evident in nature: unintelligent causes and intelligent causes. Unintelligent causes include the natural actions of physics and chemistry, operating alone by natural laws in space and time. Unintelligent causes cannot produce true design, so Darwinists dismiss the evident design in nature as merely the "appearance" of design.

Intelligent design proponent Phillip E. Johnson illustrates the obstinancy of evolutionary scientists to recognize intelligent causation of design in nature when he wrote the following:

Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA

Intelligent causes include the actions of an intelligent agent (which may be unknown, such as in anonymous works of art, or in archeological finds) manipulating physics and chemistry to create something that physics and chemistry alone cannot. Only intelligent causes can produce true design.

The question is not, therefore, "is there evidence of design in nature?" Rather, the scientific question is, "Based on the evidence of design observed in nature, what causes best explain design?" Framed this way, potential explanations, or theories, are not limited by a predetermined bias, such as only unintelligent causes (e.g., Darwinism) or only intelligent causes (e.g., creationism). The question simply asks, "in accordance with the scientific method, what causes can be logically inferred from the evidence?"

With the proper question in mind, it is easy to see that virtually all the evidence used to support Darwinism is equally evidence in support of Intelligent Design. Cosmological evidence for design is described at Evidence for Intelligent Design in Cosmology section. Biological evidence for intelligent design includes general evidence and special evidence, and both discussed at General and Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology. For all material evidence, the evidentiary value can be determined by use of the Evidence Filter.

General Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology

Bacterial Flagellum

The general evidence for Intelligent Design in biological systems is evidence that can be used to support both unintelligent causation (e.g., Darwinism) and intelligent causation (i.e., Intelligent Design Theory). Thus, the general evidence for Intelligent Design is the same evidence that evolutionists, particularly Darwinists, use to support theories of unintelligent causation. However, an objective approach shows that Darwinism is only one interpretation of the evidence. As with any evidentiary question in which present day evidence is used to determine a past historical event (as in crime solving), it's the interpretation of the evidence against competing explanatory theories that permits one to converge on a best explanation. In the case of origins science the present day evidence in nature can be viewed in light of alternative explanatory causes. To a priori rule out intelligent causation and mandate only explanations involving unintelligent causes removes the inquiry from the realm of science.^[25] Insisting that science can only consider unintelligent causation converts origins science into unchallengeable dogma. Science should be tentative, considering all reasonable causal inferences based on observed material data.

Speciation

The fact of speciation, that is, that we observe distinct species of plants and animals in nature, is strong evidence of intelligent design.^[26]

Darwin attempted to explain how unguided, purposeless processes could create new species. Darwin analagized to intelligent breeding, which involves intelligent selection among variant offspring to produce differences in future generations of a given animal or plant line. Darwin theorized that if intelligent agents could produce variations in physical characteristics in pigeons, for example, perhaps nature, via natural selection, over time could produce all the variety of species we observe.

Modern science calls Darwin's theory into question for at least two reasons. First, regardless of whether "selection" is unintelligent (by nature alone) or intelligent (by breeding), the selection process can only be effective once there is a favorable variation in the base species from which to "select". What this means is that regardless the efficacy of "natural selection", there is nothing to select until some beneficial feature or characteristic is created in the first place. Current scientific data shows that variations in the genome, i.e., random mutations, are rarely, if ever, beneficial in an organism. Most mutations are either neutral in effect, or harmful. Therefore, the idea that "selection" can be made in an unguided, unintelligent manner among largely harmful mutations to result in long term beneficial speciation is not supported by the evidence. Second, even when intelligent selection is utilized, such as in the breeding of dogs, cows, or fruitflies, the evidence shows that regardless the extent of selection, the respective species remain intact.^[27] No amount of intelligent selection, as in breeding, has ever produced any new, beneficial features, like new organs, new eyes, new wings, etc.^[28]

Therefore, the scientific question with respect to speciation is this: What evidence is there that unintelligent processes can create new, beneficial variations, such as genetic mutations, that can then be selected to propogate to future generations?

Darwin's 19th century theory was bolstered with the advent of modern genetics, microbiology, and other science disciplines, from which neo-Darwinism was born. Neo-Darwinism holds that the variation necessary for creating new features and benefits arises due primarily to the random mutations that occur in the genome of a living organism.

But can the random variation produced by chance mutations in the genome produce any beneficial change, and especially enough long-term, directional change in major features and body plans to create a new species? To date there is no evidence to suggest that such unintelligent variation can cause speciation. Just as intelligent selection can produce only different versions of an existing species, it appears from the evidence that unintelligent variation (i.e., random mutations) is likewise limited to change only within the bounds of a species. Even the intelligent manipulation of existing species such as the fruit fly has produced only more and different fruit flies.

There is simply no evidence to suggest that the random action of chance mutations can create beneficial changes from which natural selection can "select" sufficient to produce new body plans evident in even closely related species. In fact, random mutations are almost universally neutral in effect, but when of a magnitude to affect the organism are likewise almost universally detrimental to the health of the organism. In most cases such mutations result in what are called birth defects.

For this reason, the fact of different species, each being bounded by a genomic limit with respect to change, is evidence for intelligent design. An intelligent cause can create with a purpose. An intelligent cause can be forward looking to produce changes that are beneficial. An intelligent cause can create information-bearing genetic instructions, where unintelligent causes can simply shuffle genetic information in random ways, usually harming the organism.

Fossils

Fossils offer both positive evidence for design, and negative evidence for Darwinian gradualism.

Positive Evidence for Design

Fossil trilobites exhibit all the attributes of a creature designed for a purpose

Fossils exhibit features that appear designed, much like living organisms. The scientific question presented is, "is the design exhibited by fossils the result of unintelligent causes, or intelligent causes?"

The assumption of those steeped only in Darwinism, of course, is that fossils are solely the result of unintelligent causes, specifically Darwin's "descent with modification" in which each fossil is the unintelligently modified version of an ancestor in a gradual chain of cause and effect occurences. The unintelligent operations of physics and chemistry alone are believed to have produced the specified complexity observed in fossils, and in ever-increasing specification and complexity over time.

The true cause of fossils can only be determined by testing known causal agents to see if they can produce the specified complexity evident in the design of fossils. Unintelligent causes such as the random variation of mutations or the deterministic law of natural selection have not been shown to be capable of producing specified complexity, much less new and more specified complexity. Specifically, natural selection (which can only select what is already created) has no creative power. The only things that can be "selected" are things already in existence. Therefore, in Darwinism any "creating" of new DNA information coding for new body designs as evidenced in fossils must be produced by unintelligent deterministic physics. Each random mutation of the genome of an existing body plan must be directionally beneficial in producing a new, beneficial body plan. But, as discussed above, no unintelligent natural process has been shown to produce new, beneficial morphology, or new, beneficial information content in the genome, or new species. Therefore, the ability of Darwinian processes to produce the specified complexity evident in fossils is called into serious question.

Negative Evidence of Darwinian Gradualism

Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin himself recognized in his book On the Origin of Species^[29] that the fossil record does not support his theory. Beginning in Chapter 6, entitled, "Difficulties on Theory", Darwin himself noted that among the "crowd of difficulties" with Darwinism, the foremost difficulty is that the fossil record does not support his theory of gradual descent with modification. Darwin himself asked: "why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?"^[30]

There are no unambiguous transitional forms, and few purported forms in a fossil record that should be teeming with millions upon millions of such creatures. Such knowledge is common among educated scientists and paleontologists, but virtually unknown among members of the public, including students. In fact, evolutionist Stephen J. Gould described the rarity of transitional fossils as the "'trade secret' of paleontologists" in his book, The Panda's Thumb (see further, below).

Note the suprising conventional wisdom that fossils are not only evidence, but proof of "evolution". Rather than being proof for Darwinism, however, an honest assessment of the evidence shows fossils to be stronger evidence of true design than unguided, purposeless evolution. Consider, for example, the preeminent Darwinist Ernst Mayr, known as "the Darwin of the 20th century."^[31] In his 2001 book entitled What Evolution Is^[32] Mayr discusses the evidence for evolution in Chapter 2, in a section headed "What evidence does the evolutionist have?" Predictably, he first discusses the fossil evidence. Specifically, on page 14 of the paperback Basic Books edition, he states:

Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. ^[33]

Mayr goes on to make clear that the fossil record does not support Darwinian gradualism (as noted above, a fact Darwin himself recognized, but believed future fossil finds would fill in the gaps). Then Mayr asks a revealingly honest question:

This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evoution?

^[34]

The fact is that the fossil evidence does not support Darwinian gradualism. It never has and likely never will. Evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould were forced to propose theories such as "punctuated equilibrium" to "save the phenomena," i.e., explain the evidence in a coherent fashion." Stephen J. Gould refers to the rarity of transitional fossils as the "'trade secret' of paleontologists". Gould states:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record: ". . . He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory." ^[35]

Homology

Comparative anatomy of many living beings shows similarity in morphology, i.e., in body parts and structure. Sometimes refered to as an organism's Bauplan, which is a German word coined to refer to the "building plan" or "blueprint" of the organism, common or "homologous" morphological features such as skeletal frameworks point to a common intelligent designer. Just as modern architects use blueprints having common building features and engineers use common parts in different models of machines, it is not surprising that an intelligent designer of living beings would use common structure across various "models" of animals. In fact, it would be surprising if that were not the case.

Jonathan Wells, PhD., Senior fellow of the Discovery Inst. Center for Science and Culture

Paul Nelson, PhD., Fellow of both the Discovery Insitute and the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design

Without a "rule" that prohibits a scientific inference of intelligent causation,^[36] common homology among various organisms would be plainly and simply clear evidence of intelligent design. As Jonathan Wells^[37] and Paul Nelson^[38] explain in their essay, Homology, a Concept in Crisis,^[39] "Before Darwin, homology was defined morphologically and explained by reference to ideal archetypes -- that is, to intelligent design." It is only when unintelligent causes are mandated that common morphological features are "proof" of unintelligent Darwinian descent with modification. Wells and Nelson continue:

Darwin reformulated biology in naturalistic* rather than teleological terms, and explained homology as the result of descent with modification from a common ancestor. Descent with modification, however, renders design unnecessary only if it is due entirely to naturalistic mechanisms. Two such mechanisms have been proposed, genetic programs and developmental pathways, but neither one fits the evidence. Without an empirically demonstrated naturalistic mechanism to account for homology, design remains a possibility which can only be excluded on the basis of questionable philosophical assumptions.

*In this article, "naturalism" and "naturalistic" refer to the philosophical doctrine that nature is the whole of reality, and that intelligent causation does not qualify as a scientific explanation.

Wells and Nelson continue:

Diverse organisms possess homologous features. Homology in some cases may or may not be due to inheritance from a common ancestor, but it is definitely not due to similarity of genes or similarity of developmental pathways. In 1971, Gavin de Beer wrote: "What mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same 'patterns', in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered." (de Beer, 1971, p.16) Twenty-six years later, the question still has not been answered.

Without a naturalistic mechanism to account for homology, however, Darwinian evolution cannot claim to have demonstrated scientifically that living things are undesigned, and the possibility remains that homologies are patterned after non-material archetypes. Without a demonstrated mechanism, naturalistic biologists are left with only one alternative: exclude design a priori, on philosophical grounds.

This exclusion could be taken as a statement that intelligent design does not exist, or it could be taken as a statement that intelligent design is beyond the reach of empirical science. The first is a philosophical or theological statement, and warrants the same response. The second is a methodological limitation which cannot be logically extrapolated to a limitation on reality. In other words, a scientist who makes the first move is engaging in metaphysical disputation, while a scientist who makes the second is declining to investigate a possible aspect of reality.

Unfortunately, many biologists make both moves, but fail to distinguish logically between them. While justifying their exclusion of intelligent design on methodological grounds, they act as though science has disproved its existence by providing a naturalistic explanation for homology. When confronted with the fact that science has failed in this regard, they reaffirm their methodological commitment and express faith that a naturalistic mechanism will someday be discovered.

In the end, Wells and Nelson contend that genetics and developmental pathways are insufficient unintelligent causal agents to account for common morphology.

Further information from a creationist perspective can be found at The Parent Company^[40] in an essay entitled Do Similarities Prove Evolution from a Common Ancestor?

Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology

The special evidence for Intelligent Design in biological systems is material evidence for which there is no known naturalistic explanation. Such evidence can only reasonably be considered to support an inference of intelligent causation (i.e., Intelligent Design Theory).

Origin of Life

Unguided origin of Life?

To date there are no known naturalistic (involving only unintelligent processes) causes known that can explain the occurrence of life from non-life. Of all the proposed explanations for first life, only intelligent causation is tenable.

Darwin did not (and did not purport to) provide any explanation for the origin of the first replicating life form necessary for his theory of origin of species to work. That is, Darwinism is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of species that assumes a replicating life form to start the process.

Origin of life from non-living sources is termed abiogenesis or chemical evolution^[41] and scientific hypotheses that seek explanations for a first replicating life form suitable for Darwinian processes must postulate at least an unintelligent, deterministic physical cause for the first complex strand of DNA or other biologically active material.

Atheists, evolutionists and Darwinists who seek to provide an explanation for abiogenesis face the problem of proposing how the extremely unlikely occurrence of life could appear or evolve from purely unintelligent physical causes. By any account, the probability of such an occurrence by any known natural causes over any postulated time period is so low as to make the occurrence practically impossible.

By way of example of the probabilistically impossible odds of abiogenesis, consider the May 31, 2007 paper published by Eugene V. Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Peer reviewed and published in Biology Today ^[42], Koonin calculated the probability of the most simple life form arising by natural processes, with the following conclusion:

The requirements for the emergence of a primitive, coupled replication-translation system, which is considered a candidate for the breakthrough stage in this paper, are much greater. At a minimum, spontaneous formation of:

- two rRNAs with a total size of at least 1000 nucleotides

- ~10 primitive adaptors of ~30 nucleotides each, in total, ~300 nucleotides

- at least one RNA encoding a replicase, ~500 nucleotides (low bound) is required. In the above notation, n = 1800, resulting in E <10-1018.

That is, the chance of life occurring by natural processes is 1 in 10 followed by 1018 zeros. Koonin's intent was to show that short of postulating a multiverse of an infinite number of universes, the chance of life occuring on earth is vanishingly small, and we can understand the practical import to be that life by natural processes in a universe such as ours to be impossible.

Other prominent evolutionists agree that naturally occurring life from non-life is impossible. Evolutionist and theoretical physicist Paul Davies, for example, considers random self-assembly of proteins to be “a nonstarter”.^[43] Davies recognizes that life as we know it requires hundreds of thousands of specialist proteins, not to mention the nucleic acids; the number of amino acids sequenced in a small protein is 10^130 (written as one followed by 130 zeros). According to Davies, such an improbable sequence that is best explained by unconventional theories such as life has always existed. That is, there was no origin of life, because life is eternal, “spread around the universe … without having originated anywhere in particular”.^[44]

Davies also argues for a yet-to-be-discovered natural law, one that could be capable of abiogenesis:

[E]mergent laws of complexity offer reasonable hope for a better understanding not only of biogenesis, but of biological evolution too. Such laws might differ from the familiar laws of physics in a fundamental and important respect. Whereas the laws of physics merely shuffle information around, a complexity law might actually create information, or at least wrest it from the environment and etch it onto a material structure.^[45]

With respect to problems presented regarding the chance origin of life, and his proposed explanations, Davies concluded, “If you have found the foregoing argument persuasive, you could be forgiven for concluding that a genome really is a miraculous object. However, most of the problems I have outlined above apply with equal force to the evolution of the genome over time” ^[46]

Likewise, Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick (who along with James Watson, determined DNA’s molecular structure), considered the chance synthesis of even a small protein of 200 amino acids so improbable that he concluded that “the great majority of sequences can never have been synthesized at all, at any time.” ^[47]

Sir Fred Hoyle, British Astronomer

Finally, consider Sir Fred Hoyle, an atheist astronomer who nevertheless reached the conclusion that the universe is governed by a greater intelligence. In 1978, Hoyle described Charles Darwin's theory of evolution as wrong and claimed that the belief that the first living cell was created in the "sea of life" was just as erroneous. Together with Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle stated:

Precious little in the way of biochemical evolution could have happened on the Earth. It is easy to show that the two thousand or so enzymes that span the whole of life could not have evolved on the Earth. If one counts the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes, the probability of their discovery by random shufflings turns out to be less than 1 in 10 to the power of 40,000.^[48]

Mathematician and intelligent design theorist William Dembski calculates a "universal probability bound" at 10^150 (1 in 10 followed by 150 zeros). ^[49]

Clearly, then, to an objective observer of the material evidence, the fact of life's existence, knowing that it must have a genesis, or a beginning, holds little in the way of evidence for naturalistic, unguided, unintelligent processes of nature.

Origin of life, therefore, is prima facie evidence of intelligent agency, and is at minimum sufficient observational evidence to support a reasonable scientific inference of intelligent design.

Specified Complex Information

William Dembski, mathematician and philosopher, and senior fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture

Specified Complex Information (SCI) is noted by William Dembski as strong evidence of intelligent agency in biological systems. Based on the probability of certain arrangements or components of a whole, Dembski explains his idea in an essay entitled Explaining Specified Complexity^[50]

Briefly, Dembski states:

Life is both complex and specified. The basic intuition here is straightforward. A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex (i.e., it conforms to an independently given pattern but is simple). A long sequence of random letters is complex without being specified (i.e., it requires a complicated instruction-set to characterize but conforms to no independently given pattern). A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified.

“Information” is the intangible property of an arrangement of elements that imparts a message or conveys meaning. Just as a book is more than paper and ink, the message formed by the specific, non-random combination of letters and spaces you are now reading reflects the purposeful character of this sentence. Living organisms exhibit vast amounts of information content similar to that in a computer program. In fact, information is defined as “the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects."^[51] The idea that the information in a computer program or in DNA could possibly be formed in an unspecified manner by unintelligent causes is a matter for mathematicians and statisticians, all of whom report back numbers that, in the time available in our universe, make such an occurrence by unguided processes effectively impossible.

DNA is one example of specified complex information in living organisms, reflecting a purposefulness that cannot be reduced to matter alone. As intelligent design theorist Phillip E. Johnson explains:

The important thing about DNA is not the chemicals but the information in the software, just as the important thing about a computer program or a book is the information content and not the physical medium in which that information is recorded.^[52]

Very simply, there is no known unguided, purposeless process (including Darwinism) that can make non-repetitive, specified sequences of matter, particularly the long, detailed sequences of DNA, comparable in quantity and quality to an entire set of encyclopedias. ^[53]

DNA contains immaterial information

The information content of DNA is many, many times more complex and specified than a Shakespearean sonnet. Just as no scientist would suggest that Shakespearean sonnets were the work of unintelligent causes (even if the author were unknown), the presence of specified, complex information in DNA is equally dispositive of intelligent causes in living systems. The question of the cause of Specified Complex Information is critical to the origins science debate. If “evolution” means “change over time,” then there is no controversy. However, if “evolution” is defined as “a natural, unguided, information-producing process capable of creating Specified Complex Information,” then virtually no one would be an evolutionist based on the evidence. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests an intelligent cause. However, the question of the source of Complex Specified Information is secondary, and not necessarily a scientific question. But to rule out intelligent causes for Specified Complex Information based on the supposed inability for science to detect the source (e.g., as due to a conflict between "science" and "religion") is to make a category mistake. As Dembski states, “The proper contrast is between natural causes on the one hand and intelligent causes on the other.” Dembski elaborates:

Intelligent causes can do things that natural causes cannot. Natural causes can throw scrabble pieces on a board but cannot arrange the pieces to form meaningful words or sentences. To obtain a meaningful arrangement requires an intelligent cause. Whether an intelligent cause operates within or outside nature (i.e., is respectively natural or supernatural) is a separate question entirely from whether an intelligent cause has operated.^[54]

For more on the importance of biological information, see, Stephen C. Meyer, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington,^[55]. Meyer argues, citing numerous studies by other scientists, that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. Proposing intelligent design as an alternative explanation, arguing that new life forms such as those exhibited in the Cambrian explosion can only be attributed to a “remarkable jump” in complex specified information. No known material cause exists for such a jump.

Irreducible Complexity

The bacterial flagellum exibits irreducible complexity

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

Michale Behe claims to have shown exactly what Darwin claimed would destroy the theory of evolution, through a concept he calls irreducible complexity. As explained by the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center (IDEA)^[58], "In simple terms, this idea applies to any system of interacting parts in which the removal of any one part destroys the function of the entire system. An irreducibly complex system, then, requires each and every component to be in place before it will function."

The IDEA Center continues:

Since the publication of Darwin’s Black Box, Behe has refined the definition of irreducible complexity. In 1996 he wrote that “any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.”^[59]. By defining irreducible complexity in terms of “nonfunctionality,” Behe casts light on the fundamental problem with evolutionary theory: evolution cannot produce something where there would be a non-functional intermediate. Natural selection only preserves or “selects” those structures which are functional. If it is not functional, it cannot be naturally selected. Thus, Behe’s latest definition of irreducible complexity is as follows:

“An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.” (A Response to Critics of Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe, PCID, Volume 1.1, January February March, 2002; iscid.org/)

Evolution simply cannot produce complex structures in a single generation as would be required for the formation of irreducibly complex systems. To imagine that a chance set of mutations would produce all 200 proteins required for cilia function in a single generation stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point. And yet, producing one or a few of these proteins at a time, in standard Darwinian fashion, would convey no survival advantage because those few proteins would have no function-indeed, they would constitute a waste of energy for the cell to even produce. Darwin recognized this as a potent threat to his theory of evolution-the issue that could completely disprove his idea. So the question must be raised: Has Darwin's theory of evolution "absolutely broken down?" According to Michael Behe, the answer is a resounding "yes."

For a good description of irreducible complexity, including examples, see the entire article at the IDEA Center website.^[60] Michael Behe's concept of irreducible complexity is further explained by the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID)^[61] in their Encyclopedia of Science and Philosophy:^[62]

Michael Behe's Original Definition: A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution^[63], p. 39)

William Dembski's Enhanced Definition: A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. (No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased Without Intelligence^[64],p. 285)

Michael Behe's "Evolutionary" Definition: An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.

Behe first introduced the concept of irreducible complexity in his book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.^[65] He has since expanded on the concept in his book The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism.^[66] In Edge of Evolution he extends his analysis to define what evolution is capable of doing and what is beyond its scope.

Irreducibly complex

In Darwin's Black Box Behe used the illustration of a mousetrap as an example of an irreducibly complex system. See here.^[67] A simple mousetrap includes: (1) a flat wooden platform to act as a base; (2) a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing the little mouse; (3) a wire spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged; (4) a sensitive catch which releases when slight pressure is applied; and (5) a metal bar which holds the hammer back when the trap is charged and connects to the catch. There are also assorted staples and screws to hold the system together.

If any one of the components of the mousetrap (the base, hammer, spring, catch, or holding bar) is removed, then the trap does not function. In other words, the simple little mousetrap has no ability to trap a mouse until several separate parts are all assembled, i.e., all the parts arrive in functional order and are assembled at the same time. Because the mousetrap is necessarily composed of several parts, it is irreducibly complex. Thus, irreducibly complex systems exist.

Behe then asks: Now, are any biochemical systems irreducibly complex? Yes, it turns out that many are. In many biological structures proteins are simply components of larger molecular machines. Like the picture tube, wires, metal bolts and screws that comprise a television set, many proteins are part of structures that only function when virtually all of the components have been assembled. A good example of this is a cilium. The components of cilia are single molecules. This means that there are no more black boxes to invoke; the complexity of the cilium is final, fundamental. And just as scientists, when they began to learn the complexities of the cell, realized how silly it was to think that life arose spontaneously in a single step or a few steps from ocean mud, so too we now realize that the complex cilium can not be reached in a single step or a few steps. But since the complexity of the cilium is irreducible, then it can not have functional precursors. Since the irreducibly complex cilium can not have functional precursors it can not be produced by natural selection, which requires a continuum of function to work. Natural selection is powerless when there is no function to select. We can go further and say that, if the cilium can not be produced by natural selection, then the cilium was designed.

Bacterial Flagellum

Another example is the bacterial flagellum. As quoted at Access Research Network,^[68] Behe explains: "Because the bacterial flagellum is necessarily composed of at least three parts -- a paddle,a rotor, and a motor -- it is irreducibly complex. Gradual evolution of the flagellum, like the cilium, therefore faces mammoth hurdles." The bacterial flagellum is just one of virtually innumerable biological structures, that, once understood in detail, have no naturalistic causal explanation. Many evolutionists have attempted to deny Behe's contention that the flagellum is irreducibly complex, but every attempt fails to show how the flagellum actually could have been formed by Darwinian gradualism. Rather, all denials by evolutionists of irreducible complexity rely on non-confirmable, non-falsifiable, non-experimental assumptions to justify belief in unguided processes to produce such structures.

For more on irreducible complexity, go here^[69], or here^[70], or here^[71].

Examples of Intelligent Design Theory Used in Science

Intelligent design detection is uncontroversial in many well-accepted scientific disciplines. In each of the scientific disciplines listed below, scientists evaluate the evidence objectively, that is, there is no pre-determined rule of interpretation that dictates that only unintelligent causes can be considered.

Forensic sciences: Forensic scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime. For example, a forensic investigator investigating a death uses scientific evidence to determine whether the death was caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., by accident), or by intelligent causes (i.e., murder).

Archeology: Archaeologists are virtually dependent upon the science of design detection. Working with present-day evidence left from the past, archaeologists seek to determine whether artifacts were caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., clay) or intelligent causes (i.e., a clay pot).

Cryptanalysis: Cryptanalysis is the scientific endeavor of code breaking. Code breakers examine the observable evidence of a string or pattern of characters to determine if it contains a message or if it is simply a string of random, meaningless characters.

Arson investigation: Arson investigators observe evidence and attempt to explain the cause of a fire; was it caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., accidental ignition), or by intelligent causes (i.e., arson).

Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence: The name says it all. These scientists are observing evidence in the form of radio signals to determine if the signals are the result of unintelligent causes (i.e., background radiation in space), or by intelligent causes (i.e., extraterrestrial intelligence).

Each of the above scientific disciplines utilize design detection to determine if the cause of observed evidence is due to unintelligent or intelligent agency. Usually, such as in the case of archaeologists observing clay pots, the detection and determination of design is intuitive and assumed without further justification. No rigorous analytical method is required of archaeologists to support a finding of design; nothing beyond the simple, rational recognition of what is consistent with the human experience of intelligent design is necessary.

Religious Implications of Origins Science

Any theory of origins unavoidably impacts religion.^[72] As stated in Article II.C of the Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science:^[73]

Implications of scientific explanations of origins unavoidably impact religion, ethics, morality, government and politics. The implications of materialistic explanations (such as Darwinism) of origins support the central tenets of non-theistic religions^[74], while the implications of teleological^[75] explanations (such as Intelligent Design) support the central tenets of theistic religions. Both theistic and non-theistic religions and worldviews address questions of ethics, morality, government and politics.^[76]

Therefore, it should not be surprising that most theists are sympathetic to intelligent design because the science of intelligent design supports the theology of theistic religions like Christianity. Likewise, it is not surprising that virtually all atheists are Darwinists because the science of Darwinism supports the theology of non-theistic religions such as religious humanism (having a theology of atheism). The simple fact is that worldviews and interpretations of evidence go hand in hand. If, for example, your world view prohibits explanations involving intelligent design, then you will reject intelligent design in spite of the evidence, not because of it.

For this reason, as stated in Article III.A. of the Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science, if truth is the goal:

Institutions of science should ignore religious and ethical implications of competing historical hypotheses and strive for objectivity^[77] in the conduct and teaching of origins science. Institutional objectivity may be achieved by encouraging healthy competition among scientists holding differing scientific views regarding origins, consistent with the scientific method.^[78]

This is because, as stated in Article II.B. of the Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science:

The adequacy of scientific explanations of origins depends on an analysis of competing possibilities. Origins explanations use a form of abductive^[79] reasoning that produces competing Historical Hypotheses, that lead to an inference to the best current explanation rather than to an explanation that is logically compelled by experimental confirmation. Due to inherent limitations on the experimental validation of historical hypotheses, testing requires rigorous competition between alternative hypotheses so that their relative strengths and plausibilities may be compared. While competition among multiple hypotheses decreases subjectivity, it may nevertheless result in no adequate current explanation.^[80]

Objections to Intelligent Design

Creationist Objections to Intelligent Design

Many Biblical creationists and other theists object to Intelligent Design as failing to identify the alleged designer. This objection is expressed well by Georgia Purdom, Ph.D. of Answers in Genesis in an article entitled Does the Identity of the Creator Really Matter? Dr. Purdom sums up the major objection:

However, the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other.^[81]

The reader is encouraged to read Dr. Purdom's full article, as it fairly and thoroughly deals with the objection at hand. Building on the same thoughts, the Managing Director of Creation Ministries International, Dr. Carl Weiland, notes:

The Intelligent Design Movement’s motivation appears to be the desire to challenge the blind acceptance of the materialistic, godless, naturalistic philosophy of Darwinian evolution. They confront many of the philosophical underpinnings of today’s evolutionary thinking. As a movement, they are unwilling to align themselves with biblical creationism.^[82]

Referring to Intelligent Design as the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM), Weiland pinpoints the specific objection as:

The IDM’s refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God, and in particular with the history in the Bible, means that:

Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.^[83] In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse.

There is no philosophical answer to their opponents’ logically-deduced charge that the Designer was monstrous and/or inept (‘look at all the horrible, cruel, even defective things in the living world’), since bringing up the Fall is deliberately, tactically excluded. (However, the Fall was a major event in history, that changed everything. The world we are looking at now is a world that has been corrupted by sin, not the original world that God designed). Thus, the movement’s success could very likely even be counterproductive, by laying the Biblical God open to ridicule and contempt in new ways.^[82]

Response to Creationist Objections

Intelligent design theorists appreciate the criticisms of creationists such as Purdom and Weiland, and, in fact, most intelligent design theorists are creationists themselves. And while most intelligent design theorists would agree with Dr. Purdom that the Creator and his creation "reflect on each other," they would disagree that "the Creator and His creation cannot be separated." The "separation" is epistemological, that is, there is a distinction between how one can know anything about the creation versus the creator. Just as a painter can be separated from a painting, so that the painting is labelled "anonymous", and just as an archaeologist can infer a designer of a clay pot without knowing the designer's actual identity, the fact of a creator in nature can be determined scientifically, but the specific creator cannot.

Intelligent design theorists recognize that the scientific method places limits as to the kind of knowledge that can be determined scientifically. Intelligent design theorists hold that intelligent design is a logical inference based on observation of material evidence in nature. That is, intelligent design can be determined as a matter of science alone in full accord with the scientific method. But science can say little about who the designer is.

The intelligent design position is expressed well in an article by Casey Luskin entitled Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why Intelligent Design Doesn’t Identify the Designer. Luskin states, referring to a law review article he co-authored:

David DeWolf, John West and I also address this issue in our recent Montana Law Review article: It is important to stress that the refusal of ID proponents to draw scientific conclusions about the nature or identity of the designer is principled rather than merely rhetorical. ID is primarily a historical science, meaning it uses principles of uniformitarianism to study present-day causes and then applies them to the historical record in order to infer the best explanation for the origin of the natural phenomena being studied. ID starts with observations from “uniform sensory experience” showing the effects of intelligence in the natural world. As Pandas explains, scientists have uniform sensory experience with intelligent causes (i.e. humans), thus making intelligence an appropriate explanatory cause within historical scientific fields. However, the “supernatural” cannot be observed, and thus historical scientists applying uniformitarian reasoning cannot appeal to the supernatural. If the intelligence responsible for life was supernatural, science could only infer the prior action of intelligence, but could not determine whether the intelligence was supernatural.^[84]

Further, it appears that Dr. Weiland's concern that "[a]cceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions" is unfounded. Certainly some who are honestly convinced of true intelligent design might entertain "sci-fi notions," but the evidence supports the opposite--i.e., those convinced of design are more likely to entertain thoughts of a supernatural God. Like Aristotle of ancient Greece, those who reasonably and honestly are convinced of true design in nature are more likely to follow the pattern Dr. Pordum highlighted from Romans 1:18-20. That is, the creation speaks to a supernatural, infinite, eternal creator.

Take the example of former atheist Anthony Flew, as discussed by intelligent design theorist Phillip E. Johnson, in an article entitled Intelligent Design in Biology: the Current Situation and Future Prospects. First Johnson reiterates:

The goal of the Intelligent Design Movement is to achieve an open philosophy of science that permits consideration of any explanations toward which the evidence may be pointing.^[85]

However, Johnson notes with respect to the practical effects of such an open philosophy:

One early sign of the way the world is headed came in December 2004, when there was much comment in newspapers and internet discussion groups about famed atheist philosopher Anthony Flew. Flew had just announced that he had converted to philosophical theism (though not to Christianity or any other specific religion, at least as yet), on the basis of scientific discoveries and related reasoning, which had convinced him that there is an intelligent designer of the natural universe. Flew seems to have investigated the phenomenon of design in the natural world for reasons similar to my own. He wanted to decide for himself whether evidence and logic point in the direction of a creating intelligence, or whether God is nothing more than a subjective idea created by human imagination. Perhaps these questions about the reality of god are religious in nature, but they are important questions that deserve to be investigated dispassionately instead of being barred from consideration because powerful groups define “science” as committed a priori to naturalism.

Although as yet Flew does not adhere to Christianity or any other creedal faith, he has taken a giant step in that direction. In an article in the London Independent for December 27, 2004, an Oxford University theologian wrote: “What kind of God could it [i.e. Flew’s designer] refer to? One who created the universe–elementary particles, strong and weak forces, atoms and molecules, yet, for example, has no relation to the emergence of a clever humanity? Or could it be a God who was intelligent enough to create galaxies, and amazingly intricate systems like DNA, yet not intelligent enough to communicate with humankind? Although Flew does not believe in revelation, and may not feel that the Book of Genesis provides a useful account of creation, he does not seem to have quite this kind of minimalist God in mind either. In fact when pressed as to whether his ‘First Cause’ embraced omniscience, Flew admits that a First Cause, if there is one, has clearly produced everything that is going on, and this implies creation ‘in the beginning.’”^[86]

Intelligent design theorists leave the identity of the designer open as a matter of scientific discipline. Even though everyone, including creationists must rely on special revelation (i.e., the Bible) to know specifics about the designer, everyone can know the fact of design based on general revelation (i.e., nature).

Methodological Naturalist Objections to Intelligent Design

Many scientists object to intelligent design on the basis that intelligent design "is not science."

The validity of this objection depends on what is meant by the terms "intelligent design" and "science". If "science" is defined objectively (as in Websters dictionary: 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.^[87]) and "intelligent design" is defined as in this article, then intelligent design is clearly, without question "science", and the objection of methodological naturalists is overcome.

The term "methodological naturalism" describes a form of science in which science is assumed to be necessarily practiced as if naturalism were itself true. Of course, "naturalism", which is a philosophy that holds there is no immaterial substance in the universe, i.e., all is matter alone, is an assumption-based philosophy. "Naturalism", like "materialism" as a philosophy holds that there is no supernatural in the universe, no spirit, no soul, and, of course, no God.

Methodological naturalists are scientists that, while perhaps not themselves being full-fledged naturalists (although growing numbers are), insist that science be practiced as if naturalism were true. If this method of practicing science is adhered to, then intelligent design cannot be science, because intelligent design posits the possibility of a supernatural designer.

One way to illustrate the objection is this: Consider two definitions of science:

1. Science is the activity of seeking explanations for natural phenomena.

2. Science is the activity of seeking only natural (i.e., unintelligent) causes as explanations for natural phenomena.

The first definition above is an objective, bias-free definition, for which intelligent design qualifies as science. However, the second definition above is one in which the objective definition has been qualified by the term "natural", which assumes there are natural, i.e., unintelligent, causes for natural phenomena.

The second definition is the definition that methodological naturalists insist be adopted as the definition for science. However, the "natural causes alone" criteria for gaining scientific knowledges is based upon an assumption that there is a natural cause for all natural phenomena. If intelligent design is true, scientists operating by the second definition above will never be able to come to the truth. The insistence on only "natural causes" imports a philosophical bias into the objective definition, which is then defended based not on knowledge, but an assumption. Therefore, methodological naturalists "define out" of science intelligent design based on a philosophical assumption.

Response to Naturalist Objection

The simple response to methodological naturalism, which is the only principled basis for excluding intelligent design from science, is that methodological naturalism improperly and unnecessarily restricts the realm of science.

By any objective definition of science, including dictionary definitions, intelligent design is science. But the controversy begs a larger question. Historically, the practice of science can be considered in two broad categories.

Francis Bacon

First there is the inductive method espoused by Francis Bacon. Bacon pioneered the modern notion that science should let "evidence lead the inquiry" and "general axioms ought to be the end, not the beginning, of the scientific process."^[88] Bacon specifically formulated his scientific method to ensure that religious speculation (including speculation about naturalism) was excluded from the scientific process. Thus, Bacon's scientific method proceeded based on observations of nature, and logical inferences derived from those observations.

Second, there is the deductive method espoused by Rene Descartes. Descartes argued that science needed mechanical, or naturalistic, descriptions that could explain, rather than merely label, the effects.^[89] According to Cornelius Hunter, in his book Science's Blind Spot, the Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism, Descartes proposed a method of science in which "What science needed were naturalistic descriptions, even if they were not known to be true explanations. Thus, Cartesian explanations were hypothetical; Descartes argued that having a plausible yet incorrect description was better than no description at all."

Therefore, whether or not intelligent design is "science" depends on what approach one takes to science. If one takes the Baconian approach, letting the evidence lead the inquiry without presuppositions, intelligent design is science. Moreover, if one takes the Cartesian approach, intelligent design of biological systems can still be science; it depends on what hypothetical constraints are put upon scientific inquiry. Methodological naturalists place the "natural causes only" constraint on all scientific inquiry, and, therefore, define out of science the notion of any non-natural designer.

Intelligent design theorists maintain that the "natural causes only" constraint might be correct for operational science, but for historical sciences in which one is attempting to reconstruct a historical narrative based on present-day evidence, such a constraint does not make sense. For one thing, intelligent design theorists maintain that there is a difference between inductive and/or deductive sciences (each of which can be used in experimental sciences), and the "historical sciences". Intelligent design is scientific in both inductive and historical sciences (and deductive, without limiting biases), but can have its greatest value as a historical science.

The broad categories of "experimental sciences" and "historical sciences" ask different kinds of questions and use different kinds of methods. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates. The historical sciences, on the other hand, ask different kinds of questions. Rather than trying to understand how the natural world operates, the historical sciences seek to understand how things came to be. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer develops this line of thought fully in an article entitled Science and the Laws of Nature ^[90]).

The distinction between experimental and historical sciences is not an ID-inspired idea. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) makes the same distinction to defend the historical nature of evolution. In its publication Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, the NAS responds to the question, "How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?":

This question reflects a narrow view of how science works. Things in science can be studied even if they cannot be directly observed or experimented on. Archaeologists study past cultures by examining the artifacts those cultures left behind. . . . Something that happened in the past is thus not "off limits" for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions.^[91]

With respect to hypothesis testing, see, Carol Cleland, Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method, (Geology, November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11, 987-990).

The fact is that historical sciences operate by different methods, including different methods of testing, than do experimental sciences. Historical sciences attempt to construct a historical narrative to explain current observed phenomena. The only way to "test" historical narratives is by comparing with competing historical narratives to see which one more closely aligns with the observed phenomena.

Intelligent design, therefore, is not only science, but as a competing historical narrative, it is a valuable scientific challenge to the naturalistic historical narrative of Darwinism. Without it, Darwinism ceases being science, and becomes an unchallengeable dogma.

History of Intelligent Design

In many respects the history of intelligent design corresponds to the history of science in general; since the days of Aristotle most scientists have assumed design based on the clear evidence at hand. Moreover, the history of the modern intelligent design movement must be seen in the context of the ages-old tension between materialistic science and and non-materialistic science. For a timeline directed specifically to the history of intelligent design and the creation - evolution controversy, see the IDEA Center's "Primer: History of intelligent design and the creation - evolution controversy". ^[92]

Plato and Aristotle both argued that nature is teleological, a term that comes from the Greek telos meaning "directed by goal or purpose". In other words, the evidence of nature leads logically to the idea that behind the purely natural is some kind of rational, non-natural order, something Plato referred to as "Form" and which Aristotle referred to as "Idea". Both were led to their conclusions by the commonsense notion that if the world really did consist of chance configurations of atoms, then knowledge would be impossible. (See Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth, Appendix 3, p. 390.)^[93]

Nancy Pearcey

Modern intelligent design theory is simply a response to the resurgence of dominant materialistic thought, primarily as expressed by institutions of science such as universities and various academies of science. As Nancy Pearcey states: "By tracing the debate over Darwinism all the way back to Epicurus (a Greek materialist) we can place the theory in a much larger context. Darwinism was not entirely new, invented out of whole cloth." Likewise, the modern intelligent design movement can be placed in a larger context as a challenge to modern materialistic thought as enforced in modern science.

For more indepth study of the history of intelligent design, see William Dembski's work entitled Intelligent Design.^[94] In particular, Dembski's bibliography and comments are reproduced here:

Bibliography

Beckwith, Francis J. Law, Darwinism, and Public Education: The Establishment Clause and the Challenge of Intelligent Design. Lanham, Md., 2003.

Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York, 1996.

Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. New York, 1986.

Dembski, William A. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Lanham, Md., 2002.

Forrest, Barbara. “The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream.” In Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, edited by Robert T. Pennock, pp. 5–53, Cambridge, Mass., 2001.

Giberson, Karl W. and Donald A. Yerxa. Species of Origins: America’s Search for a Creation Story. Lanham, Md., 2002.

Hunter, Cornelius G. Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Grand Rapids, Mich., 2002.

Manson, Neil A., ed. God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. London, 2003.

Miller, Kenneth R. Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution. San Francisco, 1999.

Rea, Michael C. World without Design: The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism. Oxford, 2002.

Witham, Larry. By Design: Science and the Search for God. San Francisco, 2003.

Woodward, Thomas. Doubts about Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design. Grand Rapids, Mich., 2003.

Bibliographic Essay

Larry Witham provides the best overview of intelligent design, even-handedly treating its scientific, cultural, and religious dimensions. As a journalist, Witham has personally interviewed all the main players in the debate over intelligent design and allows them to tell their story. For intelligent design’s place in the science and religion dialogue, see Giberson and Yerxa.
For histories of the intelligent design movement, see Woodward (a supporter) and Forrest (a critic).
See Behe and Dembski to overview intelligent design’s scientific research program. For a critique of that program, see Miller.
For an impassioned defense of Darwinism against any form of teleology or design, see Dawkins.
Manson’s anthology situates intelligent design within broader discussions about teleology. Rea probes intelligent design’s metaphysical underpinnings.
Hunter provides an interesting analysis of how intelligent design and Darwinism play off the problem of evil.
Beckwith examines whether intelligent design is inherently religious and thus, on account of church-state separation, must be barred from public school science curricula.

Resources

Quick Start

For a quick, concise overview of what intelligent design is all about, link to the following relatively short articles:

Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution.^[95] Written by William S. Harris and John H. Calvert (of Intelligent Design Network, Inc.),^[96] this article is a one-stop mini-compendium on what intelligent design is, what it claims, and why it's important.

The Evolution Controversy: Understanding the Basic Issues in the Debate Between Biological Evolution and Intelligent Design.^[97]By Jody F. Sjogren, Robert P. Lattimer, and Douglas D. Rudy, and presented by Science Excellence for all Ohioans (SEAO).^[98] Read and understand this and you will, as the title says, understand the basic issues.

Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories.^[99] By Stephen C. Meyer of the Center for Science & Culture,^[100] this article first appeared in the peer reviewed Proceeding of the Biological Society of Washington, August 20, 2005. Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.

Web Based Resources

The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture

The Center for Science and Culture^[101] is a Discovery Institute program that encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, as well as supporting the work of scholars who challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory and scholars who are working on the scientific theory known as intelligent design.

In addition to scientific research and scholarship, the Center's Evolution News and Views blog^[102] presents analysis of that relevant news coverage, as well as original reporting that accurately delivers information about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution.

A related website, intelligentdesign.org^[103] provides up-to-date information and learning resources.

Access Research Network

The Access Research Network (ARN)^[104]is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing accessible information on science, technology and society.

ARN's articles and publications cover a host of issues--most of them controversial, focusing on such topics as genetic engineering, euthanasia, computer technology, environmental issues, creation/evolution, fetal tissue research, AIDS, and so on. ARN provides infomation needed to orient one's self in today's scientific and technological world in order to make informed decisions.

The Intelligent Design Network

Intelligent Design Network, Inc.^[105] is a nonprofit organization that seeks institutional objectivity in origins science. Objectivity results from the use of the scientific method without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from?

The Intelligent Design Network produced a Statement of Objectives ^[106] regarding origins science. The Statement acknowledges that explanations of the origin of the universe and of life and its diversity are scientifically controversial. Further, due to its controversial nature, Origins Science requires a scientific enterprise guided by 'scientific objectivity rather than a preconceived view of origins, whether Materialistic (e.g., Darwinism) or Teleological (e.g., creationism). For this reason, according to the Statement, government and public education institutions supporting Origins Science should strive for objectivity as they inform the public about the state of our scientific knowledge regarding origins.

The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center

The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center^[107]is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting intelligent design theory and fostering good - spirited discussion and a better understanding over intelligent design theory and the creation - evolution issue among students, educators, churches, and anyone else interested. The Center's primary focus is to help students form "IDEA Clubs" on university and high school campuses.

ID the Future

Intelligent Design's "Super Blog", ID the Future^[108] offers podcasts as part of its mission of exploring the issues central to evolution and intelligent design (ID). IDTF provides listeners with the most current news and views on evolution and ID through brief interviews with key scientists and scholars developing the theory of ID, as well as insightful commentary from Discovery Institute senior fellows and staff on the scientific, educational and legal aspects of the debate.

Uncommon Descent

The intelligent design weblog of William Dembski, Denyse O'Leary, and friends, Uncommon Descent^[109] holds that... Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution -- an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.

The Post-Darwinist

Toronto-based Denyse O'Leary's blog^[110], covering the intelligent design movement from a journalist/author's perspective.

The ID Report

Presented by Access Research Network^[111], the ID Report^[112] offers insightful, up-to-date commentary and op-eds on every aspect of intelligent design. Authors include David Tyler, Denyse O'Leary, Roddy Bullock, Kevin Wirth, Mark Harwig, and Paul Nesselroade.

Books, Tapes, DVD's

Discovery Institute

The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture "Essential Readings" list^[113] includes links to books and articles by leading intelligent design proponents.

Access Research Network

Books available from Access Research Network's^[114] book catalog^[115] and tapes (including DVD's)^[116] include the latest information on the subject of intelligent design.

ResearchID.org

ResearchID.org is a wiki exploring empirical, hypothetical, and technological research possibilities for intelligent design.

See Also

• Theory of evolution
• Creation Science
• Atheism

References