What is the evidence for intelligent design?
The “best” evidence for intelligent design is presented by Michael Behe and William Dembski. Both have been active for years promoting intelligent design. Behe has advanced the argument of “irreducible complexity” in his first book “Darwin’s Black Box” published in 1996. Dembski has advanced the argument for complex specified information in his 1998 book, “The Design Inference.” Later books by both expand on these topics but don’t really add much of substance.
To understand Intelligent Design, you must understand these concepts. Each is discussed below.
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY (“IC”):
IC generally argues that certain biological systems could not have evolved. These biological systems contain parts that are “irreducible complex,” meaning that, if the part is removed from the system, then the system will fail.
Evolution works on pre-existing materials. Evolution is the theory that things change over time as a result of genetic variation and natural selection. An irreducibly complex part could not exist if evolution is true. An irreducibly complex part has no use in prior systems and the system containing that part can’t evolve that part. Therefore, the intelligent designer(s) inserted that part as a whole operating piece of the system. This is often referred to as “saltation.” In short, the IC part cannot have evolved, by definition. If it could have evolved, it is not IC, by definition.
The problem comes in identifying truly irreducible complex parts. So far, ID proponents have only attempted to identify a handful of such systems, mostly identified in Michael Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box” written in 1996, over 20 years ago. Since then all of the systems he identified have been studied enough so that plausible evolutionary pathways have been shown. Therefore, the systems do not exhibit irreducible complexity because it has been shown they could have evolved.
Part of the difficulty in Behe’s definition is that some proffered examples of IC systems could reasonably have evolved by co-opting and adapting parts intended for one use and and using them for an entirely different use—giving the appearance in the new system of un-evolvability, but actually evolving for a different use. The example of such a co-option is the bacterial flagellum that appears to have adapted parts from existing secretory systems. In addition, Behe’s definition doesn’t account for “scaffolding” evolution where a system and additional support scaffolding may have evolved but over time the scaffolding wasted away as now unnecessary.
Behe eventually acknowledged these points as weaknesses in the theory. In 2001, he stated "[T]here is an asymmetry between my current definition of irreducible complexity and the task facing natural selection. I hope to repair this defect in future work.” He has not done so to date (2020). He also has not offered any additional examples of irreducible complex systems. IC could become a useful concept in biology if those biologists who are proponents of Intelligent Design would suggest a list of candidates for IC, but they have not done so. So far, IC appears to be a dead end.
COMPLEX SPECIFIED INFORMATION:
This is essentially a mathematical and probability argument chiefly advocated by William Dembski.
Dembski suggests that there are three levels of natural occurrences: 1. Those that are a result of physical or chemical laws; 2. Those that arise from chance; and, 3. Those arising from an act of an intelligent being. Dembski applies his design inference by looking at an event and creating a flow chart. First—is the event a result of a natural law? If yes, then stop. If no, then, is the event a result of chance? (recognizing that many improbable things can occur and that many coincidences are still explained by chance). If law and chance have both been eliminated as explanations for the occurrence, then design is the only option left. Dembski conceded that some extremely wildly improbable events still occur by chance so he arbitrarily has set an apparently high “probability limit” arguing if the event is so improbable, then design is more likely.
Dembski’s writing style is convoluted, florid, fulsome, turgid and tortured. This is done intentionally to obfuscate. He spends copious time explaining Shannon information and Kolmogorov information. There are extensive mathematical formulas employed in his discussion, but he, like Behe has been unable to apply CSI to real world objects. CSI is supposed to be a method to detect design based on certain patterns that occur only in the presence of intelligence, and not the result of pure chance or the application of laws of physics or chemistry.
Dembski’s problem is that CSI as a practical matter is useless. His use of the word “information” is not the same as either Shannon or Kolmogorov information. Shannon information is measured in units called “bits” and is a reduction in entropy by a quantified amount. Kolmogorov information is also measured in bits as the minimum number of bits necessary to describe the object. Again, the Kolmogorov information can be quantified in a mathematical formula. Dembski’s information has no apparent units of measure, because it is not quantifiable, it’s merely a “quality.”
Unlike the scientific forms of information discussed above, Dembski information apparently cannot be quantified. CSI claims to be able to detect characteristic patterns of design in objects and to differentiate intentional design from chance or the result of physical laws, both of which can create objects with patterns. Dembski demonstrates CSI by comparing Mount Rushmore and any random mountain. He note that there are patterns only associated with design apparent on the face of the mountain.
Here’s a photograph:
The face is pretty obvious. If Mount Rushmore contains CSI, then the rock contains CSI, too. Is it a result of intentional design or merely an accident of wind and wave erosion? Dembski can’t tell by use of CSI because he can’t quantify the amount of CSI in either this rock formation or Mt. Rushmore.
Dembski concedes that his formulation can have false positives (detecting design when it’s absent) and false negatives (failing to detect design). It is charitable to say that Dembski’s work is not yet developed enough to be useful.
Dembski also argues that his design detection method is used in archeology, forensics and SETI. That’s not true. What archeologists, forensics and SETI are looking for is not design, but manufacture or artificiality. So, for example, we can determine whether a stone mountain face was artificial by looking at the marks made by stone mason’s tools. Ancient arrowheads and tools are distinguished from other rocks by distinctive signs of a similar manufacturing process. Dembski considers evidence such as tool marks and blasting holes as “side evidence” which is irrelevant to the design inference that he advocates. Examination of side evidence such as tool marks on Mount Rushmore is, in his view, a form of cheating. Because his form of CSI is unquantifiable, it is as scientific as “beauty.” There are no units for beauty. Similarly, for CSI, there are no units to quantify the extent of CSI claimed to be present. Dembski, like Paley and his watch on the heath, “know design when they see it.” That is not a scientific concept.
Dembski and other ID proponents often say that design has only been detected in the presence of an intelligent designer. (Dembski excludes unintelligent design such as spider webs and bird nests.) What is actually true is that design has only been detected in the presence of human beings.
Those are the two best arguments for Intelligent Design. As you can see, both have major flaws.
Comments
Post a Comment