Chapter Two
History of Intelligent Design Theory
For the first 4,000 years of human history, scientists accepted the design theory. Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas, and Newton all believed nature shows design (Meyer 2000).
Theologians Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and William Paley (1743-1805) argued for the existence of God based on the presence of design in nature. This philosophy is referred to as the teleological argument, natural theology, or theological design. The word “teleological” is derived from the Greek word “telos,” which means end or purpose (Richards 2004).
In 1802, William Paley published a book titled Natural Theology. In his book, Paley uses a watch to illustrate the nature of design. The parts of the watch form a complex mechanism that cannot be explained by chance. Paley argues that objects in nature exhibit the same complexity as the watch. He concludes, therefore, that nature reflects design as well (Dembski 2003a).
According to William Dembski (2003a), mathematician and philosopher, early design arguments did not rely solely on science but involved the metaphysical (supernatural) realm as well. Today’s intelligent design theorists focus on understanding how science – not the metaphysical – explains design. Intelligent design theorists look especially to molecular biology for evidence of design and rely on the latest scientific information to support their theory.
In 1859, the design argument took a backseat to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Charles Darwin
The argument for design declined in popularity when, in 1859, Charles Darwin offered an alternative explanation for the origin of life called the theory of evolution. In his book, The Origin of Species, Darwin argued that the healthiest members of a species pass down their genes to the next generations. The unfit members of a species die, and the most fit continue to reproduce. This process is called natural selection or “survival of the fittest.” Darwin argued that over time, this process produced new species (Harris and Calvert 2003).
Today, evolutionists believe an “updated” version of natural selection. They teach that random genetic mutations (errors in DNA) cause the differences seen in species. Mutations can be helpful or harmful to a species. Modern-day evolutionists claim that natural selection chooses the helpful mutations that give a species the greatest chance of survival. These traits are then passed down from generation to generation (Pittman 2003). However, mutations do not occur often enough to “account for all the hundreds of thousands of fundamentally different genes” that exist (Mondore and Mondore 2002, p 3).
**********************************************
Take Note
Harris and Calvert (2003) point out that the term “natural selection” is inconsistent. “Selection” implies that a choice or decision is made. However, natural selection says that events occur randomly, without purpose or intelligence. Therefore, choice and decision are excluded from the process.
*********************************************
Chemical Evolution – a Challenge to Design
Most biologists rejected intelligent design during the late 19th century. During this time, scientists sought to confirm Darwin’s theory of evolution through scientific experiments (Meyer 2000). In the 1870s and 1880s, scientists believed life was made out of a material called protoplasm that they could easily create by combining chemicals such as carbon dioxide, oxygen, and nitrogen.
Scientists Haeckel and T.H. Huxley believed a two-step process of combining and recombining chemicals created the first cell. Just as combining sodium and chloride produces salt, Haeckel and Huxley believed that combining chemicals could produce a cell. This is referred to as chemical evolution (Meyer 2000).
In 1952, a graduate student named Stanley Miller tested the chemical evolution theory. He created a small amount of amino acids (the building blocks of protein) by combining methane, ammonia, water vapor, and hydrogen – the gaseous mixture Miller believed represented the early atmosphere on Earth (Meyer 2000; Strobel 2004).
Years following Miller’s experiment, scientists determined that Miller’s assumptions of what the early Earth’s atmosphere contained was inaccurate. To date, there is no evidence that the atmosphere of the early Earth consisted of methane and ammonia (Meyer 2000).
Yet, even if Miller’s experiment were re-created using the correct atmospheric conditions, the results would yield formaldehyde and cyanide. Scientist Jonathan Wells makes this observation: “Now, it’s true that a good organic chemist can turn formaldehyde and cyanide into biological molecules” (Strobel 2004, p 38). However, Wells points out that far from representing the origin of life, these molecules represent embalming fluid – a fluid used to preserve bodies that are no longer alive.
What Miller’s experiment did demonstrate is the need for intelligent intervention. Meyer (2000) explains that in the type of experiment Miller performed, the experimenter must get involved to prevent cross-reactions that would cause the amino acids to break down. Experimenters do this by removing certain chemicals that could produce undesirable affects. Meyers gives this example: A realistic atmosphere includes both short and long wavelength light. However, experimenters often use only short wave length light because long wavelength light causes amino acids to break down.
********************************************
Take Note
Miller’s experiment is still included in many textbooks in spite of its inaccuracies (Strobel 2004).
********************************************
Over the years, advances in the fields of molecular biology, biochemistry, physics, and astronomy have made it difficult for scientists to dismiss intelligent design (Meyer 2000). As a result, intelligent design has increased in popularity since the end of the 20th century (Behe 1999).
History of Intelligent Design Theory
For the first 4,000 years of human history, scientists accepted the design theory. Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas, and Newton all believed nature shows design (Meyer 2000).
Theologians Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and William Paley (1743-1805) argued for the existence of God based on the presence of design in nature. This philosophy is referred to as the teleological argument, natural theology, or theological design. The word “teleological” is derived from the Greek word “telos,” which means end or purpose (Richards 2004).
In 1802, William Paley published a book titled Natural Theology. In his book, Paley uses a watch to illustrate the nature of design. The parts of the watch form a complex mechanism that cannot be explained by chance. Paley argues that objects in nature exhibit the same complexity as the watch. He concludes, therefore, that nature reflects design as well (Dembski 2003a).
According to William Dembski (2003a), mathematician and philosopher, early design arguments did not rely solely on science but involved the metaphysical (supernatural) realm as well. Today’s intelligent design theorists focus on understanding how science – not the metaphysical – explains design. Intelligent design theorists look especially to molecular biology for evidence of design and rely on the latest scientific information to support their theory.
In 1859, the design argument took a backseat to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Charles Darwin
The argument for design declined in popularity when, in 1859, Charles Darwin offered an alternative explanation for the origin of life called the theory of evolution. In his book, The Origin of Species, Darwin argued that the healthiest members of a species pass down their genes to the next generations. The unfit members of a species die, and the most fit continue to reproduce. This process is called natural selection or “survival of the fittest.” Darwin argued that over time, this process produced new species (Harris and Calvert 2003).
Today, evolutionists believe an “updated” version of natural selection. They teach that random genetic mutations (errors in DNA) cause the differences seen in species. Mutations can be helpful or harmful to a species. Modern-day evolutionists claim that natural selection chooses the helpful mutations that give a species the greatest chance of survival. These traits are then passed down from generation to generation (Pittman 2003). However, mutations do not occur often enough to “account for all the hundreds of thousands of fundamentally different genes” that exist (Mondore and Mondore 2002, p 3).
**********************************************
Take Note
Harris and Calvert (2003) point out that the term “natural selection” is inconsistent. “Selection” implies that a choice or decision is made. However, natural selection says that events occur randomly, without purpose or intelligence. Therefore, choice and decision are excluded from the process.
*********************************************
Chemical Evolution – a Challenge to Design
Most biologists rejected intelligent design during the late 19th century. During this time, scientists sought to confirm Darwin’s theory of evolution through scientific experiments (Meyer 2000). In the 1870s and 1880s, scientists believed life was made out of a material called protoplasm that they could easily create by combining chemicals such as carbon dioxide, oxygen, and nitrogen.
Scientists Haeckel and T.H. Huxley believed a two-step process of combining and recombining chemicals created the first cell. Just as combining sodium and chloride produces salt, Haeckel and Huxley believed that combining chemicals could produce a cell. This is referred to as chemical evolution (Meyer 2000).
In 1952, a graduate student named Stanley Miller tested the chemical evolution theory. He created a small amount of amino acids (the building blocks of protein) by combining methane, ammonia, water vapor, and hydrogen – the gaseous mixture Miller believed represented the early atmosphere on Earth (Meyer 2000; Strobel 2004).
Years following Miller’s experiment, scientists determined that Miller’s assumptions of what the early Earth’s atmosphere contained was inaccurate. To date, there is no evidence that the atmosphere of the early Earth consisted of methane and ammonia (Meyer 2000).
Yet, even if Miller’s experiment were re-created using the correct atmospheric conditions, the results would yield formaldehyde and cyanide. Scientist Jonathan Wells makes this observation: “Now, it’s true that a good organic chemist can turn formaldehyde and cyanide into biological molecules” (Strobel 2004, p 38). However, Wells points out that far from representing the origin of life, these molecules represent embalming fluid – a fluid used to preserve bodies that are no longer alive.
What Miller’s experiment did demonstrate is the need for intelligent intervention. Meyer (2000) explains that in the type of experiment Miller performed, the experimenter must get involved to prevent cross-reactions that would cause the amino acids to break down. Experimenters do this by removing certain chemicals that could produce undesirable affects. Meyers gives this example: A realistic atmosphere includes both short and long wavelength light. However, experimenters often use only short wave length light because long wavelength light causes amino acids to break down.
********************************************
Take Note
Miller’s experiment is still included in many textbooks in spite of its inaccuracies (Strobel 2004).
********************************************
Over the years, advances in the fields of molecular biology, biochemistry, physics, and astronomy have made it difficult for scientists to dismiss intelligent design (Meyer 2000). As a result, intelligent design has increased in popularity since the end of the 20th century (Behe 1999).
16 comments:
"Harris and Calvert (2003) point out that the term “natural selection” is inconsistent. “Selection” implies that a choice or decision is made. However, natural selection says that events occur randomly, without purpose or intelligence. Therefore, choice and decision are excluded from the process."
The environment makes the choice. It may not be intentional but it is anything but random.
"Over the years, advances in the fields of molecular biology, biochemistry, physics, and astronomy have made it difficult for scientists to dismiss intelligent design (Meyer 2000). As a result, intelligent design has increased in popularity since the end of the 20th century (Behe 1999)."
Apparently not difficult enough. The traction ID has gained in the scientific community approaches nothing. They are beyond a fringe element and statistically irrelevant. The controversy is political and social. Until ID proposes some sort of process that can compete with known evolutionary processes it is a non-starter. They simply don't do the work. It is a dishonest intellectual enterprise.
The environment makes the choice? "Choosing" implies that some degree of intellect is used in order to select one out of at least two choices. And if the events are not random, then the "choices" are systematically made, which, again, requires intellect. Natural selection depends on gene mutations, which are harmful the majority of the time. Yet evolution tells us that these mutations kept producing something better over time. Impossible! As I mentioned in the entry, mutations do not occur often enough to "account for all the hundreds of thousands" of different genes.
If you haven't found the "process" by which ID theorists determine whether something is designed or not, then perhaps you have not read enough.
Just a couple of quick corrections.
Evolution is not a theory for the origin of life as you claim.
Species don't mutate, genes do.
Thanks. No need to credit me - just amend as shown.
Psi.
re the comment above - The envirnoment chooses in the sense that not everything survives to reproduce.
The three pillars of t o e are variation, heredity, and natural selection (not eveything surviving to reproduce) .
You just have to show how any one of these doesn't exist to be in the running for a Nobel prize.
Regards,
Psi
"mutations do not occur often enough to “account for all the hundreds of thousands of fundamentally different genes” that exist (Mondore and Mondore 2002, p 3"
I'm not acquainted with this source, but it is surely incorrect.
First, how numerous are mutations? Well, you yourself have about 120 mutations in your genes that were not in your parents' genes. Bacteria multiply much faster than you do; you can work out the math for mutations in 3.8 billion years.
How many hundreds of thousands of genes exist? Humans have 20,000, which is more than most organisms. And 99+% of human genes exist in apes. Even singl4e-cell yeast has 50% the same genes as humans. Even many genes for different functions are almost identical. The genes for tooth enamel and for breast milk are almost identical. The genes for photoreceptors in animals' eyes are almost identical to genes for ion-transport in bacteria. There simply are not :hundreds of thousands" of different genes.
"Over the years, advances in the fields of molecular biology, biochemistry, physics, and astronomy have made it difficult for scientists to dismiss intelligent design (Meyer 2000)." If this is true, then why does the Discovery Institute spend so much time and effort trying to brush off published advances in evolutionary advances? To name a recent few, Tiktaalik and cetus natans fossils, the reconstruction of a 450-million-year-old gene, and the appearance of nylon-eating bacteria that evolved 3 totally new enzymes since 1935?
"As a result, intelligent design has increased in popularity since the end of the 20th century (Behe 1999)." Only among American laymen, whose understanding of science is so poor that 10% of them believe that the sun goes around the Earth. Among practicing biology researchers, the score is 484,000 to 3. (Michael Behe, Scott Minnich, and Douglas Axe.)
Kim
Actually, I believe I have read too much of Dembski, Behe and Wells to the exclusion of works by actual scientists based on actual evidence. Behe has done nothing to experimentally verify his ideas on Irreducible Complexity. In fact, he has not even identified at what level and what structures are irreducibly complex. When someone shows him how something like the blood clotting cascade can exist missing some of its "irreducibly complex" components he moves on to the next structure, like the bacterial flagellum where potential evolutionary pathways are less understood.
I have no idea whether Dembski is on to something as far as detecting human design but that is really all we have evidence for. To eliminate natural processes through assessing probabilites based on an incomplete knowlege of those natural processes is doomed to fail. The set is too large and the potential functions are too great. He needs to submit his ideas to the proper mathematical journals. If he doesn't want to play with the big boys he needs to stop pretending what he is doing is science.
The environment chooses for fitness all the time. That's how we got here. Most mutations are neutral, harmful ones are weeded out and beneficial ones spread through the population. There are excellent mammalian fossil sequences adaptations and population movements based on changing environments. I suggest something like Prothero's After the Dinosaurs - the Rise of the Mammals. These guys didn't just dream this stuff up (unlike the Discovery Institute crew). The shear amount of corroborating data is astounding. Do a pub med search on any aspect of evolutionary theory and contrast it with any aspect of Intelligent Design and you can see where the work is being done. There really is no Intelligent Design Theory.
Natural selection exists, but not necessarily just of mutations. There may be a collection of alleles offering variations of traits that offer adaptive variations, i.e. skin color, bone structure, hair patterns, brain function variations et al, already available for selection within the genome.
If mutation were the only source, what guarantee is there of selectable mutations offering elevated functions? Vast time periods? Adaptation and diversity are the logical products of evolutionary processes, not novelty.
The primary reason is that stepwise alterations to form a new organ would not offer selective or reproductive advantages for each step, a requisite for becoming fixed in the population.
Psiloiordinary said...
"Just a couple of quick corrections. Evolution is not a theory for the origin of life as you claim."
Although not part of evolutionary theory, it is evidence of design. I think that's why it's often brought up in these discussions.
But even the mechanisms of evolution, while functioning to propogate and adapt, and primarily sexually, pose the question of how those functions arose. How did single cell organisms evolve from that state to the higher states?
I view earth as a biologic workshop, and the creative processes along the way as challenges to spirit entities. Some lifeforms are so bizarre that they're almost comical. The gene tweakers may well have a sense of humor.
Now what about God? In any hierarchy, whether General Motors or 'Theme Park Earth', there is a chain of command. I believe in a supreme being at the top of that pyramid, but not necessarily the one that did the actual 'grunt work'.
The good news is, that if true (or not far off base), your existence may continue on.
Critics of religious views often cite apparent Biblical errors and contradictions, but hey, those words were derived from men. Mostly true, but subject to man's corruption of truths, translational errors, and wisdom from earlier, less advanced eras of time.
Further, the depiction of Yaweh, primarily through Moses' eyes, could well have been skewed by his motives and challenges out there in the wilderness.
So buy evolution the way you've been told to interpret it, or become a true 'free thinker'. It's your choice.
And if nature was designed, could it have been via natural processes? Since genetic engineering is now possible by us, it's similarly plausible that upward progressions of bioforms, along with the variety and aesthetics in evidence, were done accordingly.
"Adaptation and diversity are the logical products of evolutionary processes, not novelty."
What do you mean by novelty? Party hats and whoopie cushions? We have numerous examples of novel functions emerging at the bacterial and viral level and some potential ones at the species level.
"Since genetic engineering is now possible by us, it's similarly plausible that upward progressions of bioforms, along with the variety and aesthetics in evidence, were done accordingly."
OK, so come up with some 3 billion year old lab equipment or propose some sort of process. It is fairly evident, without proposing some unsupported scifi scenarios, that human beings did not create life on this planet.
Kim asserts that “Today’s intelligent design theorists focus on understanding how science – not the metaphysical – explains design. Intelligent design theorists look especially to molecular biology for evidence of design and rely on the latest scientific information to support their theory.”.
If ID proponents rely on the latest scientific information, why do they spend all their time trying to deny it? Fossils, genetic trees, comparative anatomy, evo-devo—every advance in evolutionary biology is merely denied or distorted. None of it is used as evidence for design. ID’s primary scientific witness, Michael Behe, was forced to admit in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in 2005 that no experiment or calculation has been conducted that shows positive evidence for design. Nothing in the subsequent 3 years has changed that fact. I would go further, and wager that not a single experiment, calculation, or computer simulation by mainstream science has even been cited as positive evidence for design. If you are aware of an example, please let the world in on the secret.
Lee asks: “But even the mechanisms of evolution, while functioning to propogate and adapt, and primarily sexually, pose the question of how those functions arose. How did single cell organisms evolve from that state to the higher states?”
I’m not sure what you mean by “higher state,” because evolution has only later states, not higher ones. So I’ll assume you’re referring to multicellularity. First, the cells of a single organism must communicate with each other. But all single-cell organisms communicate with each other by “signalling molecules.” (q.v.). Next, cells must be able to stick to each other to form a multicellular body. The molecule thay use is called adhesin, and it is found in many bacteria...For further developments, see, e.g., Stanley, “An Ecological Theory for the Sudden Origin of Multicellular Life in the Late Precambrian,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 1973-05, vol. 70 no. 5 pp.1486-1489. Individually small steps, executed over unimaginably long periods of time, and, voici, multicellular life from single-cell ancestors.
Scripto, Dembski is most definitely not “on to something.”
His piece de resistance, the Explanatory Filter, says that a phenomenon is intelligently designed if it cannot be shown to be the result of chance or of natural law. There are (at least) 3 flaws in this that are each big enough to drive an elephant through.
First, the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. The cause of every phenomenon is one of 3 categories. Yet Dembski offers no evidence that this list is exhaustive. He merely assumes it. This is the first shell, under which there is no pea.
Second, you can only assign a cause to chance if you present evidence to that effect. And you can only assign the cause to natural law if you present evidence that a particular law covers the situation. However, design requires no evidence whatsoever! It can be merely assumed without proof. This is the second shell, under which there is no pea.
Third, design is the same as ignorance under the Filter. The Filter tacitly assumes that we already know every natural law that will ever be discovered. If a phenomenon is caused by a law of whose existence we are as yet unaware, then the Filter automatically assigns the cause to design. Therefore, our ignorance of that particular law is the same as design. This is the third shell, under which there is no pea.
I find it instructive that Dembski’s centerpiece test for Intelligent Design has been around since 1999 (“The Design Inference”), but it has not ever been applied to any particular cases. No test cases, no control sample where we already know the answer, nothing at all. Nor is it at all evident how one might go about applying the Filter to a given situation.
Dembski has a PhD in mathematics, and his followers have called him “the Newton of information theory.” Does it not therefore strike you as odd that Dembski has never published a single peer-reviewed paper on any aspect of information theory? How about that he has never published a single paper on any subject in mathematics? I rest my shells.
scripto asked,
" What do you mean by novelty? Party hats and whoopie cushions? We have numerous examples of novel functions emerging at the bacterial and viral level and some potential ones at the species level."
Party hats w/n have come to be w/o hominids, so yeah, good observation. Novel functions, such as the flagellum and the type three secretory syringe, while having some of the same proteins (homologs), and being similar in shape (morphologically homologous), and mounted on the cell wall, have totally different functions. For that reason, it's been hypothesized that one evolved from the other, or that they have a common ancestor ;-),(OK, members of sister groups).
There is no hard evidence that either one evolved, or of any intermediate structures. Homologous proteins are an important consideration if 'self-evolving' is posited. But if 'design' is posited, protein homologs are less important, since either new proteins, or borrowed proteins could be encoded, along with coding regarding their structure and placement. An analog, altho not self replicating, is the auto salvage yard; evolved autos with homologous materials, components and assemblies.
While survival in sexually reproducing organisms (the 'party hats') is a basis for genetic propagation of a trait or altered morphology, feel free to offer up why a cell would follow that same path. The flagellum is complex, and would not come about without multiple incremental mutational changes (if mutation was the mechanism). The intermediate alterations, even if neutral or advantageous, would offer no immediate survival advangtage, so would have no causation to become fixed in the colony.
The T3 secretory syringe has been said to precede the flagellum, although no enhancement of cellular function would exist, since the cell would have no way to propell itself against another cell, to inject it with toxins. And why would a cell be set up to do that, having no consciously directive inclinations. Cells are building blocks for higher (OK, later forms), but by themselves, have no apparent purpose.
Cellular structures appear more to be constructs to be used in later forms, and would never invent themselves via random chance. Vast (to us) time periods allow for more chance occurrences, but w/o an immediate improved function for each mutation, would have no reason to subsist. Therefore, by deduction, they would never form.
Evolutionary theory has some merit for higher forms, but not without due consideration of the means of cell design, and the prior formation of amino acids, proteins, RNA structure, and coding ability.
I know, that's not part of evo-devo, so let's just skip these steps and climb the phylogenetic tree, shall we. ;-)
"OK, so come up with some 3 billion year old lab equipment or propose some sort of process. "
Lab equipment is what we use; the physical form requires it. A biologic form (human form), constrained by residing in a fixed size robotic construct, with farsighted vision by reflected light only, with clumsy fingers, and many other bodily restraints needs tools for genetic exploration and alterations, while a non-corporeal (spirit) form might not, or would use other, unknown tools.
How done without a lab? Other than amino acid combining and protein placement, it could be done simply by re-coding of RNA. Multiple tries might be needed to succeed, likely over vast time, and possibly as a group effort.
It is fairly evident, without proposing some unsupported scifi scenarios, that human beings did not create life on this planet."
I would posit that non-biologic entities did the work, since biologic forms were not yet existent (well, duh). There is considerable evidence that we are spirit within a bio-form, so early designers could have been also.
Regarding the question of scifi scenarios, don't be too quick to label 'spirit' as nonsense. While outside of mainstream science, accounts of "out of body", spirit observations and communications, and NDE episodes are many, and span virtually all of recorded history. Most of the reports are from impartial persons, with no agenda to lie or fabricate stories, and their experiences are similar. Granted, there are charlatans simply out to make money, but the evidence cited by the masses way overshadows those examples.
I'm not disavowing evolution as a mechanism for 1) adaptation and 2) diversity, so don't place me in that camp. My research is with empirically based evidences only, and that is the sole basis for my views.
"I'm not disavowing evolution as a mechanism for 1) adaptation and 2) diversity, so don't place me in that camp. My research is with empirically based evidences only, and that is the sole basis for my views."
OK. But is there any evidence for the immaterial moving the material?
Re my previous answer to Lee (July 27, 2008 3:09 PM) on multicellular evolution. I was looking for a vaguely remembered ref yesterday, but didn't find it until today.
An article on the ASA site describes an experiment in which a unicellular green algae evolved a multicellular form. See http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199810/0065.html
New Scientist has an article describing this, at http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15721252.300-safety-in-numbers--for-our-ancestors-ganging-together-was-the-only-hope-of-survival.html
Post a Comment