Intelligent Design - Part VI

This is the final chapter in this series. Thanks to everyone for their comments.



Chapter Five
Intelligent Design Critics

The most common argument against the intelligent design theory is that it is not a true science. According to scientist Linus Pauling, science is defined as the “search for truth” (Harris and Calvert 2003, p 557). Sciences that study the origin of life (origin sciences), such as intelligent design, seek the truth regarding how life began. In order to separate truth from fiction, scientists follow a procedure called the scientific method. Can scientists apply this method to the intelligent design theory?

The Scientific Method

The scientific method generally consists of five steps:

1. Observe an object or phenomenon and gather information
2. Form a hypothesis (a description of what is observed)
3. Make predictions based on the hypothesis
4. Perform experiments to test the predictions and update the hypothesis if the test results require it
5. Continue testing and modifying the hypothesis until the hypothesis and test results match one another (Wudka 1998).

Critics claim that intelligent design is not scientific because it cannot be tested or make predictions – two elements of the scientific method (Harris and Calvert 2003).

Can Intelligent Design be Tested? Make Predictions?

Harris and Calvert (2003) explain how intelligent design is tested by the same techniques used in other sciences such as forensics, cryptanalysis, and archeology. Scientists in these three fields must determine if intelligent action is at work:

Ø Forensics: Scientists perform tests to determine whether a death is a result of an accident or natural death (chance/necessity) or murder (intelligent action proven by the intent to kill).

Ø Cryptanalysis: Specialists called code breakers look closely at characters to determine if they communicate a message (intelligence).

Ø Archeology: Archeologists test objects to determine if they are man-made (intelligent action) or produced by natural causes. For example, a clay pot exhibits intelligent design while a rock formation may exist because of natural causes (wind, erosion, etc.).

Likewise, intelligent design is a science that uses various methods (discussed in chapter three) to “test” whether or not objects are caused by intelligent action or chance.

Intelligent design also makes predictions. For example, theorists predicted that a purpose for “junk DNA” would be found (Harris and Calvert 2003). As you recall, the instructions in DNA are made up of sequences or patterns of letters. DNA that does not contain instructions is called non-coding or “junk” DNA. Recently, scientists discovered that so-called “junk” DNA has a special job within the nucleus – to help the proteins created by DNA to function (The Designing Times 2002; The Free Dictionary.com by Farlex 2005).

Is the Intelligent Design Theory Peer Reviewed?

When scientists want to share their findings with others, they follow a process called peer review. Scientists submit their manuscripts to at least two experts who work in the same field addressed in the manuscript. For example, if a scientist writes about molecular biology, then experts in the biology field read and comment on the contents contained in the manuscript (Henneberg 1997).

Critics argue that the intelligent design theory is unscientific because it is not peer reviewed. However, this claim is deceptive. Because the majority of scientists today do not support intelligent design, many refuse to review any work on the subject (Harris and Calvert 2003).

However, others have reviewed the works of leading scientists in the intelligent design movement - Michael Behe and William Dembski, and “an enormous amount of work is being done to find naturalistic explanations of their arguments” (Harris and Calvert 2003, p 538).

Motivation

While early design arguments relied on the metaphysical realm as well as scientific data, today’s intelligent design theory relies exclusively on scientific evidence. Scientists have discovered, through advances in technology, that objects in nature – such as the cell – exhibit the same complexity as designed objects made by human hands and minds. Therefore, many scientists have concluded that nature exhibits signs of intelligent design. Why, in spite of the evidence, do many scientists reject intelligent design? Perhaps the following quotes help explain the motivation behind the rejection of intelligent design:

Evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith wrote, “Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable” (Dvorak 2004, p 4).

Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer – Anthropology, Sydney University said, “One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator” (Dvorak 2004, p 5).

Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University wrote, “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic” (Dvorak 2004, p 5).

“Naturalistic” refers to the philosophy of naturalism. This philosophy is the foundation of evolution and states that natural laws explain all phenomena. Naturalism eliminates design, purpose, and the supernatural.

**********************************************************************************
Take Note
Naturalism is a philosophy and not a belief based on scientific data. All other possible causes of life are rejected, not based on scientific data, but because they fail to meet the definition of naturalism (Harris and Calvert 2003).
**********************************************************************************

The Future of Intelligent Design

The belief that living organisms show design and, therefore, are a product of intelligent action has existed for thousands of years. While Darwin offered an alternative to the design theory, and many scientists have followed his lead, advances in technology will continue to strengthen evidence for intelligent design.

Perhaps Behe says it best:

The idea of Intelligent Design is widely discussed now and, although there’s resistance to it, I think it will fade as science progresses. As we learn more about biology, we’ll see that it’s becoming more complicated and fits less into the Darwinian evolutionary model (Peters 1999, p 6).
#########

References

Access Research Network. 1998. Molecular Machines Museum. Accessed 2005 March 31.

Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin’s black box. New York: The Free Press.

Behe, Michael J. 1999 June 7. The God of science: the case for intelligent design. Accessed 2005 January 24.

Carpi, Anthony. 1999. The cell. Accessed 2005 January 27.

Cells Alive. 2004. Lysosomes, peroxisomes, secretory vesicles. Accessed 2005 January 26.

Dembski, William A. 1999. Explaining specified complexity. Accessed 2005 January 24.

Dembski, William A. 2003a August 28. Intelligent design.
Accessed 2005 January 26.

Dembski, William A. 2003b February 17. Still spinning just fine: a response to Ken Miller. Accessed 2005 January 26.

Dembski, William A. 2004a January 16. Detecting design in biological systems. Accessed 2005 February 2.

Dembski, William A. 2004b. Introduction: the myth of Darwinism. In: Dembski, William A, editor. Uncommon dissent: intellectuals who find Darwinism unconvincing. Wilmington: ISI Books. p xvii-xxxvii.

The Designing Times. 2002. Accessed 2005 January 26.

Dvorak, Allen. 2004. When evolutionists tell the truth. Sermon outline that includes quotes from evolutionists regarding the problems with the theory of evolution.

The Free Dictionarary.com by Farlex. 2005. Non-coding DNA. Accessed 2005 February 2.

Harris, William S; Calvert, John H. 2003. Intelligent design: the scientific alternative to evolution. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly Autumn 2003: 531-561. Accessed 2005 January 26.

Henneberg, Marcie J. 1997. Peer review: the Holy Office of modern science.
Accessed 2005 February 25.

Intelligent Design Basics. [undated]. What is the theory of intelligent design? Accessed 2005 January 27.

Luskin, Casey. 2001. The science behind intelligent design theory. Accessed 2005 January 26.

McDonald, John H. 2000. A reducibly complex mousetrap. Accessed 2005 March 31.

Meyer, Stephen C. 2000 April 1. DNA and other designs. Accessed 2005 January 26.

Mondore, Robert; Mondore, Patricia A. 2002 December 14. Designer genes. Accessed 2005 January 31.

Peters, Holly. 1999. Darwin’s demise. Accessed 2005 January 26.

Pittman, Sean D. 2003. Natural selection. Accessed 2005 February 25.

Richards, Stephen. 2004. The design argument. Accessed 2005 February 25.

Strobel, Lee. 2004. The case for a Creator. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Umedicine.net.2005. GCE “o” level biology (5093) study guide. Accessed 2005 March 31.

University of California in Santa Barbara [undated]. The bacterial flagellum.
Accessed 2005 January 26.

University of Wisconsin. 2005. The why files. Accessed 2005 March 31.

West, John G. 2002 December. Intelligent design and creationism just aren’t the same. Accessed 2005 January 26.

Wudka, Jose. 1998. The scientific method.

Intelligent Design - Part III

Chapter Three
Detecting Intelligent Design

Until recently, no methods of detecting intelligent design existed (Dembski 2003a). The two most common methods used today are specified complexity and irreducible complexity.

Specified Complexity

Mathematician and philosopher William Dembski formulated the specified complexity method for detecting design (2004a). Objects that have these three characteristics – contingency, complexity, and specificity - are said to show design.


Contingency

Something contingent is a possibility - but not the only possibility. For example, if I toss a coin with one side heads and one side tails, heads is a possibility, but so is tails. The result of the coin toss is contingent because more than one possibility exists. However, if heads is on both sides of the coin, heads is always the result and no choice exists. Therefore, natural laws explain the result because natural laws always have the same result (Intelligent Design Basics undated).

Complexity
Anything that is complex has a number of interrelated parts that makes chance an improbable cause (Intelligent Design Basics undated). For example, a sentence is complex compared to a single letter in the alphabet.

Specificity

This term refers to anything that follows a meaningful pattern. For example, although the letter “a” is simple and not complex, it follows a pattern: it is the first letter of the alphabet (Dembski 2003a).

Using the alphabet as an example, below is an illustration of specified complexity based on the three characteristics described above.

Object
1. Letter "a" of the alphabet
2. Lengthy string of letters in no particular order (i.e., gbaozmt)
3. Arrangement of letters in a poem

Contingent
1. Yes: 25 other choices
2. Yes: various combinations possible
3. Yes: other possible poems

Complex
1. No: too simple
2. Yes: many components
3. Yes: many components

Specified
1. Yes: always the first letter of the alphabet (pattern)
2. No: no meaningful pattern
3. Yes: follows the pattern of grammar

In all cases of specified complexity in which cause is known, intelligence is responsible (Dembski 1999; Meyer 2000).

Irreducible Complexity

Biochemist Michael Behe (1996) writes about the concept of irreducible complexity in his book Darwin’s Black Box. Behe argues that biological systems show design due to their irreducibly complex nature. If an object is irreducibly complex, it cannot be reduced to a simpler, functioning object; and the object must contain all of its parts at the same time in order to function. If any part is removed, the object will no longer work. This characteristic found in nature presents a problem for Darwinian evolution.

Darwin wrote: “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” (Behe 1996, p 39; Strobel 2004, p 197).

Behe (1996) states that since all components of a complex system must be in place at once in order to function, the system could not have possibly evolved as Darwin describes.

The Standard Mousetrap

To illustrate the concept of irreducible complexity, Behe (1996) refers to the standard mousetrap with five parts: platform, hammer, spring, catch, holding bar (See figure 3.1). If any one of these parts is missing, the trap will not function.

Table 3.2 illustrates how scientists determine if an object or system is irreducibly complex. Using the mousetrap as an example, Behe (1996) asks three questions as the following table demonstrates:

Table 3.2 Steps to Determine Irreducible Complexity

Step
Can the scientist name the function and components of the system?
Mousetrap Characteristic
Function: trap mice
Components: platform, catch, hammer, spring, holding bar

Step
Are all parts necessary for the object to function?
Mousetrap Characteristic
Yes – For example, if the holding bar is missing, the trap will not catch mice.

Step
Are there any functional precursors?*
Mousetrap Characteristics
No – The trap with five parts did not “evolve” from a simpler form.

*Behe (1996) explains that other means to catch mice exist, i.e., glue traps, boxes propped with sticks, etc. However, none of these can develop into a mousetrap that includes a platform, catch, hammer, spring, and holding bar. This means the mousetrap has no functional precursors.




Figure 3.1 Standard Mousetrap
source: McDonald, John H. 2000. A reducibly complex mousetrap. Accessed 2005 March 31.


Evolutionists’ Arguments Against Mousetrap Analogy

Some evolutionists argue that the mousetrap does not demonstrate irreducible complexity. In an interview with Lee Strobel (2004), Michael Behe discusses two of those arguments as follows:

Ø It is possible to build a less complex, functioning mousetrap with fewer parts. Behe agrees; however, the point is that the mousetrap Behe refers to could not be created gradually because it would not function until all parts are fully in place.

Ø Perhaps natural selection preserved the components as they served other purposes while a complex system developed. Ken Miller, Brown University professor and evolutionist, makes this argument. In his analogy, Miller theoretically removes parts of Behe’s mousetrap and assigns functions to these components until they can develop into the mousetrap.

Some components in complex systems can have other functions. However, the question is whether or not these functions will develop into a complex system through a series of modifications over time. Behe writes: “He’s [Miller] starting from the finished product—the mousetrap—and disassembling it and moving a few things around to use them for other purposes. Again, that’s intelligent design!” (Strobel 2004, p 200).

Irreducible complexity is not the only complication for Darwinian evolution. Related to irreducible complexity is a concept called “minimal function.” For Darwin’s natural selection to work, objects must have minimal function. For example, not only does the mousetrap need all of its parts, these parts must work efficiently. If the mousetrap platform is made out of paper, the platform is too weak to support the other parts, which reduces the ability of the trap to function (Behe 1996).

We have focused on man-made objects to illustrate design. What about complex living organisms? Do they exhibit irreducible complexity and specified complexity as well?

In the next chapter, we will look at biological examples of intelligent design.

Intelligent Design - Part II

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).

Intelligent Design - Part I

I researched and wrote a booklet titled Mind Over Matter: an Introductory Guide to the Intelligent Design Theory. This material is copyrighted. I will be posting the booklet in the span of five or six blog entries.

*************************************************************************************
Chapter One

Defining Intelligent Design

Imagine that you are serving as a juror in a murder trial. As the prosecuting and defense attorneys prepare to present their evidence, the judge announces that only the defense attorney can present evidence in favor of the defendant. Will you hear an accurate and complete presentation of the evidence? Of course not! Yet, this is exactly the situation that students experience today as teachers are silenced in the classrooms from presenting scientific evidence that refutes the theory of evolution.

The purpose of this guide is to introduce students to the intelligent design theory – the scientific alternative to evolution. This guide will

Ø Discuss what the intelligent design theory is – and is not
Ø Briefly trace the history of the design argument
Ø Discuss methods used to detect intelligent design
Ø Give examples of design
Ø Address evolutionists’ arguments against the intelligent design theory.

What is the theory of intelligent design?

The question every person eventually asks is “how did life begin?” The three possibilities that explain the origin of life are

Ø Natural laws
Ø Chance
Ø Intelligent design.

The evolutionary theory says that natural laws and chance alone created life (Harris and Calvert 2003). Intelligent design, “the science that studies signs of intelligence” (Dembski 2003a, p 1), says that life can be a result of all three possibilities – natural laws, chance, and design. To demonstrate how these possibilities can work together, consider what happens when someone tosses a coin. The decision to toss a coin is an act of intelligence. How the coin falls is according to a natural law – the law of gravity. The result of the coin toss (heads or tails) is left to chance (Harris and Calvert 2003).

According to Harris and Calvert (2003), many scientists have concluded – based on studying and observing the complexity in the natural world – that intelligent action best explains the origin of the universe.

While intelligent design looks for signs of intelligence in objects, it does not identify the designer’s purpose (Dembski 2003a).

Is the Theory of Intelligent Design the Same as Creationism?

We understand that designed objects – such as cars – have a designer. When we observe objects in nature that show signs of design, we can reasonably conclude that these designed objects have a designer, too. Many identify this designer as God. Does this then imply that the intelligent design theory is the same as creationism – a theory that identifies the designer as God? Although many scientists today claim that intelligent design theory is creationism, it is not.

The intelligent design theory does not name the designer (Luskin 2001). Intelligent design is not a religion, and does not refer to religious texts such as the Bible. Creationism defends a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation and supports a young Earth theory. The intelligent design theory does not (West 2002). In Uncommon Dissent, Dembski defines creationism as “a literal interpretation of Genesis in which God through special acts of creation brings the biophysical universe into existence in six literal twenty-four hour days, somewhere in the last several thousand years” (2004b, p xxiii).

The following illustrates the differences between creationism and intelligent design:

Creationism
Identifies designer as God
Defends literal interpretation of Genesis
Supports young Earth model

Intelligent Design
Does not identify designer
Makes no reference to religious texts
Accepts an older Earth model

Why are evolutionists labeling the intelligent design theory as “intelligent design creationism”? Ronald Numbers, University of Wisconsin historian of science, is critical of the intelligent design theory; however, he explains that mislabeling intelligent design as intelligent design creationism is the “easiest way to discredit intelligent design” (West 2002, p 1).

Has intelligent design always been sharply criticized by scientists? In the next chapter, we will briefly trace the history of intelligent design and answer this question.