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