What is Intelligent Design?
I'm old enough to remember the days when studying apologetics limited you to three or four classical books with antiquated arguments for the existence of God. Today that is very different. Since the mid to late 90s there has been an explosion authors writing on a variety of apologetic subjects and, in particular, on Intelligent Design (ID). This is very different from Christian Creationists who use the scripture to make their arguments and always point to the God of the Bible. While much of what ID theorists do does point to the God of the Bible, it is a very different endeavor, primarily because they do not begin with premise of scripture and divine intervention. Using the same scientific data as the evolutionists, they are simply coming to very different conclusions while building on a new scientific theory. Composed primarily of scientists, they are using the same method as Darwinian evolutionists (inference to the best explanation) but applying mathematics to better understand the data.
Their primary endeavor is to analyze scientific findings and determine if in fact the data can be explained by unguided chance as the evolutionists insist, or if it has the hallmarks of design. Much of their initial efforts were spent laying out out a blue print that properly distinguishes undeniable features of design and systems that can be explained by random chance occurrences, which we will discuss under our first subheading. By way of definition, below are four different worldviews.
Though ID theorists do not proclaim the God of the Bible and, in fact many are atheists or agnostics, it does play a significant role within the Christian worldview, primarily because of the fact that theologians are not experts in the sciences and therefore many misinterpreted the scientific data for so long. So where does Intelligent Design fit into the Biblical Worldview?
Theologians = Creation Scientific Community = Evolution
Intelligent Design
Bridging the Gap
Another benefit of ID for the Christian is the fact that they are bringing to light many of the features in the universe that point to the God of the Bible. This is significant because Romans 1:20 claims that God's invisible attributes are seen by the things that are made. Therefore we can better understand God by learning more about the universe. For the evangelist, it is important because these features in the universe can serve as a powerful witnessing tool to bring atheists and believers closer to God.
Design vs. Chance
Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (1996) Intelligent Design Theory–posits the idea that a system of information, specified complexity and purpose must be the product of an intelligent agent. That intelligent causes can do things unintelligent causes cannot.
Information + Specified Complexity + Purpose = Intelligent Agent
William Dembski, The Design Inference (1998). In this book he distinguishes between three competing explanations for biological systems: regularity, chance, and design. Dembski demonstrates that if the thing being examined cannot be explained by regularity, and if it is too statistically unlikely to be explained by chance, and contains an independently given pattern, then it may be attributed to design. Dembski claims that his concept is used in detecting design in different fields: forensic science, archaeology, insurance fraud investigation, cryptography, and SETI investigations.
Specificity + Complexity = Design
Many well known atheists such as Richard Dawkins admit that "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." But in such cases they advise us to hold fast to a belief in naturalism as science will one day explain away the enigma. Of course it begs the question: if it appears to be designed, isn't that sufficient evidence that it is designed? When we find some ancient cave drawings, atheists don't questions their design features, rather they use a very low threshold for making that determination. ID theorists here set the unmistakable criteria for answering the question of design.
What is Irreducible Complexity?
In his landmark book, On the Origins of Species, Charles Darwin puts everything on the line when he claims that, “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.” So have we found such a complex organ?
Michael Behe, Ph.D. in Biochemistry defines this complex organ as an organism that is Irreducibly Complex or more specifically, as a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning. He notes that an irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications because an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on. That is, the part has to be fully functioning to give the species an advantage and thus have natural selection select it.
Behe, uses the analogy of a mousetrap to illustrate this concept. A mousetrap consists of several interacting pieces—the base, the catch, the spring and the hammer—all of which must be in place for the mousetrap to work. Removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. Intelligent Design advocates assert that natural selection could not create irreducibly complex systems, because the selectable function is present only when all parts are assembled. Behe argued that nature is littered with irreducibly complex biological systems like the bacterial flagellum of E. coli, the blood clotting cascade, cilia, the adaptive immune system and others.
Information + Specified Complexity + Purpose = Intelligent Agent
What is Specified Complexity?
William Dembski who has a Ph.D. in Mathematics and Philosophy, asserts that specified complexity is present in a configuration when it can be described by a pattern that displays a large amount of independently specified information and is also complex, which he defines as having a low probability of occurrence. It refers to characters that need to be arranged in a very precise way in order to perform a function. He provides the following examples to demonstrate the concept: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified." The Gettysburg address is both complex and specified. A mountainside is complex; Mount Rushmore is complex and specified.
Living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA, primarily because DNA molecules only work to create an eye or a fingernail, using very specific instructions, which are laden with information. Dembski goes on to say that, “We have no experience at all of abstract principles producing information while we do know that concrete intelligences are capable of producing it.”
By "specified", Dembski is describing an information system that has a small window of possibilities to exists. For example, a blue print for a Ford car alternator can only exist within very limited possibilities. Millions of possible blue prints exist, but if you need one for a Ford car, your window of possibility is tiny. The same goes for the DNA sequences needed for an eye. Billions of possible DNA sequences can exist, but if you need an eye that functions, the millions of DNA sequences necessary are specified and very complex.
Specificity + Complexity = Design
Can Chance Create Something?
As Stephen Myers, notes in his ground breaking book Signature in the Cell, the problem with all the possible naturalistic explanations is that they all rely heavily on chance. Chance does not create nor does it have any explanatory power. If I roll a dice and it falls on six, it can be said that it happened by chance. But chance didn’t make it fall on six. The force I applied, the angle at which it landed, etc. made it fall on six. Chance just states that we don’t know how it fell on six, but it’s within the expected probability distribution. If it falls on six 100 times in a row, we will no longer claim chance. Chance can only explain an event when it falls within expected statistical distribution. If I win the lotto once or even twice in my life, that would fall within the expected region. If I win it every week for ten years, that would require a new explanation.
When evolutionists claim that the millions of specific DNA sequences necessary to form an eye happened by chance, they fail to provide an adequate explanation because, as we've noted, specified sequences do not form by chance. It is more likely that a monkey typed out a perfect set of encyclopedias by chance than the DNA sequence to form a wing came together by chance.
The human eye
The complexity of the eye surpasses human comprehension, for example, the retina is a very thin and complex tissue lining the back of the eye. It contains 7 million cone cells for color assessment, 125 million rod cells for adaptation to the dark, and 1.2 million nerve cells that collect billions of bits of information. For images to be registered in the brain, it takes an incredibly complex arrangement of photo-chemical receptors, nerve cells, electrical signals to and within the brain, muscles, tear ducts, skeletal structures, not to mention the absurdly complicated arrangement of molecules which make up the eye itself. Geoffrey Simmons, What Darwin Didn't Know
If you hired the world’s best electricians and had them string together 1.2 million lights onto a circuit board the size of a football field, you would never get within anything that approaches the precision found in the one square inch of the human eye. Does this kind of precision happen by chance? Does something with such complexity and purpose (to see) come about by accident?
In previous sessions we discussed the importance of the fact that every cause must be sufficient to account for the effect. If you came into my house and noticed a beautiful painting of a sunset on the wall and I told you a frog painted it, you would think I'm crazy. Because the cause (a frog) cannot account for the effect (a beautiful painting). A frog cannot account for a beautiful painting any more than chance can account for a system of information and complexity.
God of the Gaps?
The atheists, evolutionists, and naturalists object to the Intelligent Design movement on the grounds that they are arguing from the gaps: “There’s no scientific explanation; thus it must be God.” But they are not and should not argue from this position. The ID theorists are saying, let the evidence go where it leads. They are using the same method as Darwin and coming to a more plausible explanation. More importantly, their methodology is more sound than current evolutionary theorists because like every good theory, they are applying mathematical principles.
Articles
Evolution and Intelligent Design Jonathan Wells
Darwin's Defenders deny Life's Evident Design Stephen C. Meyers
A Scientific History and Philosophical Defense of the Theory of Intelligent Design Stephen C. Meyer
Can DNA Prove the Existence of an Intelligent Designer? Stephen C. Meyer
Their primary endeavor is to analyze scientific findings and determine if in fact the data can be explained by unguided chance as the evolutionists insist, or if it has the hallmarks of design. Much of their initial efforts were spent laying out out a blue print that properly distinguishes undeniable features of design and systems that can be explained by random chance occurrences, which we will discuss under our first subheading. By way of definition, below are four different worldviews.
- Creation – The idea that the universe, all life, matter, energy, and time is the product of a purposeful creative act by a Creator who exists outside the creation as explained by the Bible.
- Intelligent Design – The idea that features in the universe, the solar system and living organisms are best explained by an intelligent agent or an intelligent cause.
- Naturalism – A philosophical commitment to a universe governed exclusively by natural causes. A universe of matter and energy with no underlying purpose, direction or design. “Our materialism is absolute, we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.” Richard Lewontin
- Darwinian Evolution – The theory that claims that all species emerged from a common ancestor through the process of random mutations and natural selection.
Though ID theorists do not proclaim the God of the Bible and, in fact many are atheists or agnostics, it does play a significant role within the Christian worldview, primarily because of the fact that theologians are not experts in the sciences and therefore many misinterpreted the scientific data for so long. So where does Intelligent Design fit into the Biblical Worldview?
Theologians = Creation Scientific Community = Evolution
Intelligent Design
Bridging the Gap
Another benefit of ID for the Christian is the fact that they are bringing to light many of the features in the universe that point to the God of the Bible. This is significant because Romans 1:20 claims that God's invisible attributes are seen by the things that are made. Therefore we can better understand God by learning more about the universe. For the evangelist, it is important because these features in the universe can serve as a powerful witnessing tool to bring atheists and believers closer to God.
Design vs. Chance
Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (1996) Intelligent Design Theory–posits the idea that a system of information, specified complexity and purpose must be the product of an intelligent agent. That intelligent causes can do things unintelligent causes cannot.
Information + Specified Complexity + Purpose = Intelligent Agent
William Dembski, The Design Inference (1998). In this book he distinguishes between three competing explanations for biological systems: regularity, chance, and design. Dembski demonstrates that if the thing being examined cannot be explained by regularity, and if it is too statistically unlikely to be explained by chance, and contains an independently given pattern, then it may be attributed to design. Dembski claims that his concept is used in detecting design in different fields: forensic science, archaeology, insurance fraud investigation, cryptography, and SETI investigations.
Specificity + Complexity = Design
Many well known atheists such as Richard Dawkins admit that "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." But in such cases they advise us to hold fast to a belief in naturalism as science will one day explain away the enigma. Of course it begs the question: if it appears to be designed, isn't that sufficient evidence that it is designed? When we find some ancient cave drawings, atheists don't questions their design features, rather they use a very low threshold for making that determination. ID theorists here set the unmistakable criteria for answering the question of design.
What is Irreducible Complexity?
In his landmark book, On the Origins of Species, Charles Darwin puts everything on the line when he claims that, “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.” So have we found such a complex organ?
Michael Behe, Ph.D. in Biochemistry defines this complex organ as an organism that is Irreducibly Complex or more specifically, as a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning. He notes that an irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications because an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on. That is, the part has to be fully functioning to give the species an advantage and thus have natural selection select it.
Behe, uses the analogy of a mousetrap to illustrate this concept. A mousetrap consists of several interacting pieces—the base, the catch, the spring and the hammer—all of which must be in place for the mousetrap to work. Removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. Intelligent Design advocates assert that natural selection could not create irreducibly complex systems, because the selectable function is present only when all parts are assembled. Behe argued that nature is littered with irreducibly complex biological systems like the bacterial flagellum of E. coli, the blood clotting cascade, cilia, the adaptive immune system and others.
Information + Specified Complexity + Purpose = Intelligent Agent
What is Specified Complexity?
William Dembski who has a Ph.D. in Mathematics and Philosophy, asserts that specified complexity is present in a configuration when it can be described by a pattern that displays a large amount of independently specified information and is also complex, which he defines as having a low probability of occurrence. It refers to characters that need to be arranged in a very precise way in order to perform a function. He provides the following examples to demonstrate the concept: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified." The Gettysburg address is both complex and specified. A mountainside is complex; Mount Rushmore is complex and specified.
Living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA, primarily because DNA molecules only work to create an eye or a fingernail, using very specific instructions, which are laden with information. Dembski goes on to say that, “We have no experience at all of abstract principles producing information while we do know that concrete intelligences are capable of producing it.”
By "specified", Dembski is describing an information system that has a small window of possibilities to exists. For example, a blue print for a Ford car alternator can only exist within very limited possibilities. Millions of possible blue prints exist, but if you need one for a Ford car, your window of possibility is tiny. The same goes for the DNA sequences needed for an eye. Billions of possible DNA sequences can exist, but if you need an eye that functions, the millions of DNA sequences necessary are specified and very complex.
Specificity + Complexity = Design
Can Chance Create Something?
As Stephen Myers, notes in his ground breaking book Signature in the Cell, the problem with all the possible naturalistic explanations is that they all rely heavily on chance. Chance does not create nor does it have any explanatory power. If I roll a dice and it falls on six, it can be said that it happened by chance. But chance didn’t make it fall on six. The force I applied, the angle at which it landed, etc. made it fall on six. Chance just states that we don’t know how it fell on six, but it’s within the expected probability distribution. If it falls on six 100 times in a row, we will no longer claim chance. Chance can only explain an event when it falls within expected statistical distribution. If I win the lotto once or even twice in my life, that would fall within the expected region. If I win it every week for ten years, that would require a new explanation.
When evolutionists claim that the millions of specific DNA sequences necessary to form an eye happened by chance, they fail to provide an adequate explanation because, as we've noted, specified sequences do not form by chance. It is more likely that a monkey typed out a perfect set of encyclopedias by chance than the DNA sequence to form a wing came together by chance.
The human eye
The complexity of the eye surpasses human comprehension, for example, the retina is a very thin and complex tissue lining the back of the eye. It contains 7 million cone cells for color assessment, 125 million rod cells for adaptation to the dark, and 1.2 million nerve cells that collect billions of bits of information. For images to be registered in the brain, it takes an incredibly complex arrangement of photo-chemical receptors, nerve cells, electrical signals to and within the brain, muscles, tear ducts, skeletal structures, not to mention the absurdly complicated arrangement of molecules which make up the eye itself. Geoffrey Simmons, What Darwin Didn't Know
If you hired the world’s best electricians and had them string together 1.2 million lights onto a circuit board the size of a football field, you would never get within anything that approaches the precision found in the one square inch of the human eye. Does this kind of precision happen by chance? Does something with such complexity and purpose (to see) come about by accident?
In previous sessions we discussed the importance of the fact that every cause must be sufficient to account for the effect. If you came into my house and noticed a beautiful painting of a sunset on the wall and I told you a frog painted it, you would think I'm crazy. Because the cause (a frog) cannot account for the effect (a beautiful painting). A frog cannot account for a beautiful painting any more than chance can account for a system of information and complexity.
God of the Gaps?
The atheists, evolutionists, and naturalists object to the Intelligent Design movement on the grounds that they are arguing from the gaps: “There’s no scientific explanation; thus it must be God.” But they are not and should not argue from this position. The ID theorists are saying, let the evidence go where it leads. They are using the same method as Darwin and coming to a more plausible explanation. More importantly, their methodology is more sound than current evolutionary theorists because like every good theory, they are applying mathematical principles.
Articles
Evolution and Intelligent Design Jonathan Wells
Darwin's Defenders deny Life's Evident Design Stephen C. Meyers
A Scientific History and Philosophical Defense of the Theory of Intelligent Design Stephen C. Meyer
Can DNA Prove the Existence of an Intelligent Designer? Stephen C. Meyer