Inaccurate Discussion: A Response to Scott LaFee's "Intelligent Discussion" (Union Tribune, June 8, 2005) [Long Version]by IDEA Center Staff (First Posted July 7, 2005)
One of the foundational tenets of the IDEA Philosophy is to value dialogue, discussion, and exchange with those who are critical of intelligent design. We at the IDEA Center were pleased to see that the Union Tribune covered intelligent design. However, we were saddened that they chose to only interview scientists who were anti-ID, and that the article did not seek dialogue, discussion, and exchange with scientists or organizations holding pro-ID viewpoints. We were also saddened and concerned that many of the statements about intelligent design in the article were highly inaccurate. Thus, we have composed this response with the purpose of helping to correct much of the misinformation about intelligent design in "Intelligent Discussion" by Scott Lafee (Union Tribune, June 8, 2005). Additionally, the IDEA Center is sponsoring a series of Intelligent Design Video Nights at the Chula Vista Public Library, where the public will have an opportunity to freely view 3 intelligent design videos. This will help correct some of the misinformation in the article about intelligent design theory. The grey boxes contain quotes from “Intelligent Discussion,” followed by commentary and documentation correcting the various inaccurate statements. This response is a collective effort contributed to by various IDEA Center staff. Quick Navigation: Response to comments by... Response to Comments by Scott LaFee:
Response: Unfortunately this statement is not an accurate description of the actual nature of intelligent design theory and how it works. I. This states that intelligent design argues simply that “there are things in the world – namely, life – that defy scientific explanation.” This is an inaccurate characterization for two reasons: Intelligent design theory does not simply argue that aspects of life are unevolvable and is not purely an argument against naturalistic processes. The theoretical way we infer design is expounded in detail in The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press, 1998) by William Dembski. An essay by William Dembksi lays out in detail how we can understand the products of intelligent design by examining how designers work: "CSI is a reliable indicator of design because its recognition coincides with how we recognize intelligent causation generally. In general, to recognize intelligent causation we must establish that one from a range of competing possibilities was actualized, determine which possibilities were excluded, and then specify the possibility that was actualized. What's more, the competing possibilities that were excluded must be live possibilities, sufficiently numerous so that specifying the possibility that was actualized cannot be attributed to chance. In terms of probability, this means that the possibility that was specified is highly improbable. In terms of complexity, this means that the possibility that was specified is highly complex. All the elements in the general scheme for recognizing intelligent causation (i.e., Actualization-Exclusion-Specification) find their counterpart in complex specified information-CSI. CSI pinpoints what we need to be looking for when we detect design."[1] Thus, intelligent design theory is not based purely upon a negative critique of Neo-Darwinism. Indeed, below are discussed 4 positive predictions of intelligent design theory, based upon our observations of how intelligent agents operate:
These observations can then be converted into predictions about what we should find if an object was designed:
These predictions can then be put to the test by observing the scientific data:
In this manner, intelligent design clearly makes a positive argument for intelligent design, as it observes how intelligent agents act when designing (Table 1) in order to make predictions about what we should find if an intelligent agent had been at work (Table 2) , and then goes out and tests those predictions to see if they are met (Table 3)! It is not simply a critique of Neo-Darwinism. B) Intelligent design does not argue that characteristics of life “defy scientific explanation” because intelligent design itself puts forth a scientific explanation. Intelligent design simply argues that Neo-Darwinism is the wrong scientific explanation for the origin of many aspects of life—it does not argue that there is no “scientific explanation.” In contrast, intelligent design theory argues that there IS a scientific explanation: intelligent design. 2. The second problem with the first statement above is that it states that intelligent design appeals to a “supernatural creator.” Again, this is an inaccurate statement about intelligent design theory. Many critics of intelligent design (including your article on ID) have inaccurately stated that intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God, or that it posits an explicitly supernatural creator. The reasons why critics misconstrue intelligent design in this fashion are apparent and twofold:
By calling intelligent design as an appeal
to the supernatural, the public has been misled into thinking that intelligent
design is both unscientific and unconstitutional to teach. Thankfully, the reality of intelligent design theory is much different from how it was portrayed in the article.
"If science is based upon experience, then science tells us the message encoded in DNA must have originated from an intelligent cause. But what kind of intelligent agent was it? On its own, science cannot answer this question; it must leave it to religion and philosophy. But that should not prevent science from acknowledging evidences for an intelligent cause origin wherever they may exist. This is no different, really, than if we discovered life did result from natural causes. We still would not know, from science, if the natural cause was all that was involved, or if the ultimate explanation was beyond nature, and using the natural cause."[9] "Surely the intelligent design explanation has unanswered questions of its own. But unanswered questions, which exist on both sides, are an essential part of healthy science; they define the areas of needed research. Questions often expose hidden errors that have impeded the progress of science. For example, the place of intelligent design in science has been troubling for more than a century. That is because on the whole, scientists from within Western culture failed to distinguish between intelligence, which can be recognized by uniform sensory experience, and the supernatural, which cannot. Today we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science."[10] "The idea that life had an intelligent source is hardly unique to Christian fundamentalism. Advocates of design have included not only Christians and other religious theists, but pantheists, Greek and Enlightenment philosophers and now include many modern scientists who describe themselves as religiously agnostic. Moreover, the concept of design implies absolutely nothing about beliefs and normally associated with Christian fundamentalism, such as a young earth, a global flood, or even the existence of the Christian God. All it implies is that life had an intelligent source."[11] "The most important difference [between modern intelligent design theory and Paley's arguments] is that [intelligent design] is limited to design itself; I strongly emphasize that it is not an argument for the existence of a benevolent God, as Paley's was. I hasten to add that I myself do believe in a benevolent God, and I recognize that philosophy and theology may be able to extend the argument. But a scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far. This while I argue for design, the question of the identity of the designer is left open. Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel--fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being. Of course, some of these possibilities may seem more plausible than others based on information from fields other than science. Nonetheless, as regards the identity of the designer, modern ID theory happily echoes Isaac Newton's phrase >hypothesis non fingo.[12] "Although intelligent design fits comfortably with a belief in God, it doesn't require it, because the scientific theory doesn't tell you who the designer is. While most people - including myself - will think the designer is God, some people might think that the designer was a space alien or something odd like that."[13] "One of the worries about intelligent design is that it will jettison much of what is accepted in science, and that an “ID-based curriculum” will look very different from current science curricula. Although intelligent design has radical implications for science, I submit that it does not have nearly as radical implications for science education. First off, intelligent design is not a form of anti-evolutionism. Intelligent design does not claim that living things came together suddenly in their present form through the efforts of a supernatural creator. Intelligent design is not and never will be a doctrine of creation."[14] "The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all the firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer."[15] "The most obvious difference is that scientific creationism has prior religious commitments whereas intelligent design does not. ... Intelligent design ... has no prior religious commitments and interprets the data of science on generally accepted scientific principles. In particular, intelligent design does not depend on the biblical account of creation."[16] "Intelligent design begins with data that scientists observe in the laboratory and nature, identifies in them patterns known to signal intelligent causes and thereby ascertains whether a phenomenon was designed. For design theorists, the conclusion of design constitutes an inference from data, not a deduction from religious authority."[17] "ID is not an interventionist theory. Its only commitment is that the design in the world be empirically detectable. All the design could therefore have emerged through a cosmic evolutionary process that started with the Big Bang. What's more, the designer need not be a deity. It could be an extraterrestrial or a telic process inherent in the universe. ID has no doctrine of creation. Scott and Branch at best could argue that many of the ID proponents are religious believers in a deity, but that has no bearing on the content of the theory. As for being “vague” about what happened and when, that is utterly misleading. ID claims that many naturalistic evolutionary scenarios (like the origin of life) are unsupported by evidence and that we simply do not know the answer at this time to what happened. This is not a matter of being vague but rather of not pretending to knowledge that we don't have."[18] Intelligent design theory begins and ends with observations of the natural world. It begins with observations of intelligent agents in the natural world, in order to quantify the sort of information they tend to emplace into their designed objects. It ends with observations as we study natural objects to determine if they contain that information which we know is a tell-tale sign that an intelligent agent played a hand in the origin of that object. True to the scientific method, throughout the entire process of testing for intelligent design, we are making observations of the observable natural world.
Science, and thus intelligent design theory, can only
discover what is found in the observable realm. We cannot access the
supernatural. Thus intelligent design proponents make it clear that all their
theory can do is tell if a natural object bears the hallmarks of having been
designed--it cannot tell you anything about the designer, much less that it was
a supernatural deity. If some supernatural agent took action in the natural
world, we might be able to detect that action, but not detect whether the actor
was supernatural or otherwise.
In this diagram, many types of intelligent agents could produce identical objects with high levels of complex and specified information (CSI). Intelligent design theory can only find the object containing high levels of CSI and works backwards to detect if an intelligent was at work. While it can detect that the object was designed, it cannot discriminate what kind of designer designed the object, nor determine any specific properties about the designer, other than that it was an intelligent agent. All intelligent design theory can infer is that the object was designed. Intelligent design, as a scientific theory cannot identify the identity of the designer. Not identifying the designer is not a cop-out nor does it stem from an unwillingness to be honest about motivations. It results solely from the pure empirical limitations of scientific investigation. As William Dembski notes: The fact that the identity of the designer is a religious question does not negate the purely scientific methods through which we can infer merely that an object was indeed designed. Indeed, when we find the type of information we know tends to be produced by intelligent agents, we have a valid scientific rationale for inferring intelligent design. Thus, intelligent design proponents themselves readily admit that they may believe the designer is God. However, this belief does not derive from intelligent design theory. To call intelligent design an appeal to a “supernatural creator” is to inaccurately describe intellignt design theory.
Response: This is another inaccurate statement because the Kansas State Board of Education is not considering introducing intelligent design into the curriculum. All they are considering is whether criticism of Neo-Darwinism should be taught. They are not considering teaching another alternative explanation like intelligent design. Documentation on what is actually being considered by the Kansas State Board of Education can be found at http://www.evolutionnews.org/index.php?p=465&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 where an article by Seattle Pacific University political science professor John West explains the actual nature of what is being considered by the Kansas State Board of Education. In contrast to what your article contained, the actual draft being considered by the Kansas Science standards contains the following statement: Response to Comments by Phil Unitt:
Response: Dr. Unitt is correct to state that scientific ideas can be tested by “observation and experimentation” and subject to being proven false. At this point, Dr. Unitt’s lack of familiarity with intelligent design theory, or the wrings of intelligent design proponents becomes eminently clear, as intelligent design proponents have devised many ways of testing their ideas. Intelligent design is based upon the methods of science, and not upon faith. Leading intelligent design theorist William Dembski writes: "Natural causes are too stupid to keep pace with intelligent causes. Intelligent design theory provides a rigorous scientific demonstration of this long-standing intuition. Let me stress, the complexity-specification criterion is not a principle that comes to us demanding our unexamined acceptance--it is not an article of faith. Rather it is the outcome of a careful and sustained argument about the precise interrelationships between necessity, chance and design."[20] 
Detecting design using the scientific method: The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design. ii. Hypothesis: If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects. iii. Experiment: We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly. iv. Conclusion: Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed. Also, regarding testability of intelligent design, a number of testable predictions made by intelligent design proponents are outlined in detail in Tables 1-3 above.
Response: Of course Dr. Unitt’s statements here are completely correct. The question is, what relevance does it have to intelligent design theory? Such criticisms have no application to intelligent design theory for the following reasons: 1) Intelligent design theory is not claiming that “God” or any other designer in particular created the universe 2) Intelligent design is not basing its claims off of any religious authority or scriptural test. This is explained by William Dembski: ID uses similar logic to detect design in biology. The theory is essentially a competing explanation for the origin of biological information. As Richard Dawkins observes, every cell “contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica put together.”[22] By observing that intelligent agents tend to produce tremendous amounts of encoded information, ID theorists look at the cell and find places where design is the best explanation. Response to Comments by Christopher Wills:
Response: Firstly, a semantic correction. Dr. Wills refers to intelligent design proponents as "intelligent designers." While intelligent design proponents are humans, and thus are "intelligent designers" the correct way to refer to a proponent of an intelligent design is not to call them an "intelligent designer." In intelligent design theory, "intelligent designers" are those who do the designing of the objects being studied. To refer to scientists who are accepting of intelligent design theory, it might be clearer for him to use terminology such as "intelligent design proponents" or even acceptable terms of endearment like "IDists." Dr. Wills makes an interesting concession here because he concedes that intelligent design is “in principle” falsifiable. He writes “it is in principle testable.” Thus, Wills contradicts Phil Unitt’s claim that intelligent design is not even in principle subject to testability. In fact, Wills even mentions the SETI Project as an example of intelligent design reasoning in-action. Thus, Wills makes very important concessions which go towards intelligent design being possible to be a legitimate scientific hypothesis. However, for Wills, it has not been practically put to the test. Thus, for Wills, intelligent design is not science because it isn’t testable, it isn’t science because it simply hasn’t been tested. Thus, Wills makes the following allegations: “the intelligent designers have proposed no such experiments. Their hypothesis is therefore not subject to modification, much less eventual abandonment.” Again, this demonstrates a complete lack of familiarity with the primary writings and literature of intelligent design proponents. Intelligent design has been tested. Indeed, in a recent article, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,"[23] by Stephen C. Meyer proposes that intelligent design might be detected if we found one can study the paleontological record to test if the phyla were designed in the Cambrian explosion. Indeed, others have done computer calculation studies to test the degree to which irreducible complexity exists in protein-protein bonds, which may have a large bearing on whether or not these structures were designed.[24] This paper, by a leading design theorist Michael Behe, gives indirect support to the notion that protein-protein interactions exhibit intelligent design. Clearly ID proponents have indeed tested their ideas against the data. This means that contrary to Dr. Wills’ allegations, intelligent design passes his second criteria for being science: that it has been subjected to actual tests!
Response: Dr. Wills is correct to claim that evolution is testable. However, his claim that there are no “sudden discontinuities in the history of life” or that there are no “new structure or function [that] has arisen without any previous history and no relationship to structures or functions in other related organisms” are pure bluffs. The fossil record tells a tale where there are many new structures which appear in a “discontinuous” manner which betrays a simple evolutionary explanation. Consider the following statements from prominent biologists who were not bluffing about the nature of the fossil record: While many evolutionary biologists have attempted to invoke “punctuated equilibrium” as an explanation for the abrupt and discontinuous appearance of biological novelty in the fossil record, consider this analysis of the implausibility of such an explanation by biologist Michael Denton: Thus, according to this evidence, there clearly are “sudden discontinuities in the history of life, in which a new structure or function has arisen without any previous history and no relationship to structures or functions in other related organisms.” By his own standards, evolution seems to fail the test put forth by Christopher Wills with respect to the origin of the major body plans of animals as they appear in the Cambrian Explosion. Response to Comments by Exequiel Ezcurra:
Response: This is an odd characterization of intelligent design theory, because most intelligent design theorists do not cast the theory in terms of its predicting an “entity” and don’t even talk that much about the nature or identity of the designer. As William Dembski writes: Additionally, if there were any need for evidence of a designer, intelligent design theory itself provides it. As noted, intelligent design theory studies how intelligent agents operate to figure out what kind of properties are typically found in objects they design. When those same types of properties are found in objects in nature, we have a rational argument for inferring that some intelligence designed those objects.
Response: Here, Dr. Ezcurra again mischaracterizes intelligent design as an appeal to the “supernatural.’ Dr. Ezcurra is correct to state that science cannot study the supernatural. However, if an object bears properties which seem to be like those which we find in objects we observe are created by intelligent agents, then the most parsimonious explanation is that such an object was designed. Thus, as Stephen C. Meyer writes: “Agents can arrange matter with distant goals in mind. In their use of language, they routinely ‘find’ highly isolated and improbable functional sequences amid vast spaces of combinatorial possibilities.”[36] "Indeed, in all cases where we know the causal origin of 'high information content,' experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role."[37] Response to Comments by Evan Snyder:
Response: Again, Dr. Snyder makes the mistake that intelligent design proponents are arguing for the existence of “God.” As noted previously, intelligent design theory does not identify the existence of the designer. Additionally, Dr. Snyder implies that intelligent design theorists are afraid of falsifying their hypotheses because it will damage their faith. Rather, there are clear-cut examples of Darwinists who see evidence for intelligent design but reject it for their own anti-theological reasons. Consider this statement by Richard Dawkins regarding the aforementioned explanation for the Cambrian explosion:
Response: Dr. Snyder is of course correct that ID needs to be subjected to tested and attempts for falsification. ID proponents do not fear this, and as noted above, ID proponents have tested their ideas against the data. He is incorrect to assume they have not tested their claims. Below is another summary of how ID matches up when tested against the data:
The data did not have to turn out like this, but the data do seem to be confirming intelligent design. Response to Comments by Jeffrey Bada:
Response: Dr. Bada should be commended for recognizing that intelligent design is not an argument specifically for a supernatural creator. However, Dr. Bada does indeed misconstrue intelligent design. Bada claims that intelligent design claims that because the processes involved in the origin of life are “scientifically unknowable” that therefore intelligent design is the best explanation. In contrast, intelligent design makes no such argument from ignorance, and I am aware of no intelligent design proponent who has ever made such an argument. As noted previously, intelligent design proponents observe that intelligent agents tend to produce specific types of coded information. When such high levels of encoded information are found in the cell, perhaps intelligent design is the best explanation. Consider this argument from Stephen C. Meyer which rebuts Bada’s “argument from ignorance” claim with respect to the powerful argument ID makes to explain the origin of life: Second … the "DNA to Design" argument does not depend upon an analogy between the features of human artifacts and living systems, still less upon a weak or illicit one. If, as Bill Gates has said, "DNA is similar to a software program" but more complex, it makes sense, on analogical grounds, to consider inferring that it too had an intelligent source. […] The design argument from the information in DNA does not depend upon such analogical reasoning since it does not depend upon claims of similarity. As noted above, the coding regions of DNA have the very same property of "specified complexity" or "information content" that computer codes and linguistic texts do. Though DNA does not possess all the properties of natural languages or "semantic information"--i.e., information that is subjectively "meaningful" to human agents--it does have precisely those properties that jointly implicate an antecedent intelligence.”[41] Dr. Bada’s statements
also stand in contrast to Christopher Wills’ comments as Bada claims that
intelligent design is untestable. Wills, however, who is familiar with the SETI
project, recognizes that the claim that an object was designed is indeed
testable. Intelligent design proponents
regularly cite SETI as a one of many examples of ID-reasoning being applied by
scientists.
More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance. New lines of thinking and experimentation must be tried."[43] Response to Comments by Moselio Schaechter:
Response: Here Dr. Schaechtler commits the “Darwin-of-the-gaps” fallacy by assuming that all current failures of evolution will one day be solved. In reality, it is very easy for one to question the evolvability of a structure based upon irreducible complexity. In fact, the very first person to pose such a challenge to Darwin’s theory was Darwin himself! Darwin wrote: Michael Behe explains that Darwin’s test applies to biological features discovered in modern biology in that they require many parts in order to function, and if one part is removed, the feature stops functioning. This makes us severely question if these structures are evolvable. The burden is upon Darwinist to come up with an account which demonstrates that a feature can arise by “numerous, successive, slight modifications” for they are the ones making that claim. As Michael Behe writes:
Response: Biologists surely are learning more about the complexity of biology! But as they learn more, they are not coming up with explanations for the origin of many forms of irreducibly complex biological features such as the flagellum. Dr. Schaechter talks about a plague which supposedly arose by evolution about 100,000 years ago. While there is no doubt that Dr. Schaechter has evidence that such a plague arose long ago, he provides no evidence for how the genes which were horizontally transmitted arose in the first place. Dr. Schaechter’s evidence probably comes simply from comparing proteins in one bacteria to proteins of another. This may imply common descent, but it does not imply that a Neo-Darwinian mechanism was at work. What is necessary is a detailed account of what genes were transmitted such that structures remain functional along each step of the evolution. The genes which form the bacterial flagellum are highly tailored to create a complex biological machine. Over 40 parts are required to create an outboard rotary engine on a bacterium. Michael Behe argues that such a structure is irreducibly complex. What are the odds that such genes suddenly appeared in one bacterium to assemble such a complex machine? The odds are so low that it should not happen in the history of the universe, and biologists have still not come up with an evolutionary explanation for the origin of such biological complexity. Response to Comments by Mark Tuszynski:
Response: Dr. Tuszynski is correct that in 1953, Stanley Miller showed that most of the amino acids present in life could be created through a simple experiment. However, he is incorrect to state that “[t]he conditions of this experiment mimicked the state of the primordial planet billions of years ago.” In contrast, this experiment has fallen under severe criticism because of the very fact that it did not mimic the actual conditions on the early earth. Unfortunately, it appears that Dr. Tuszynyski is unaware of the current state of origin of life research. Origin-of-life researchers often assume there was a purely natural cause, though often there is no external scientific evidence for that cause, only philosophical assumptions. This fact is well-illustrated by admissions made by famous origin of life (OOL) researcher Stanley Miller about why he used certain gasses in experiments producing the building blocks of life: & "We believe that there must have been a period when the earth's atmosphere was reducing, because the synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions." [47]
Is there any geochemical evidence that the soup ever existed? There is no geological evidence left in the rocks that a primordial soup ever existed. If there was ever a soup, the earliest Precambrian rocks should contain high levels of non-biological carbon, for biologically produced carbon contains an excess of "isotopically light" carbon. Ancient sedimentary rocks, however, do not reveal this signature,[59] and thus there is no positive evidence for this soup. If these processes produced a soup, they should have left a significant (1-10 meter thick) layer of tar encircling the earth, but there is no geochemical evidence of such a layer[60] nor any published geochemical evidence of a primordial soup.[61] Had there been a soup, then the rocks thought to be from that time period ought to contain an "unusually large proportion of carbon or organic chemicals" which they do not.[62] So drastic is the evidence against pre-biotic synthesis, that in 1990 the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council recommended to scientists a "reexamination of biological monomer synthesis under primitive Earthlike environments, as revealed in current models of the early Earth."[63] Response to Comments by Joshua Fierer:
Response: Dr. Fierer here does not realize that intelligent design theory is not a moral argument about the “goodness” or “badness” of a design. After all, many objects of destruction, such as torture chambers, guns, and nuclear weapons are designed. There is no incompatibility between having the efficient cause of intelligent design combined with a final cause which is "evil." Something can be morally evil and yet be intelligently designed. For example, medieval torture chambers contain clearly designed tools that were designed to inflict harm, and even death. The same can be said of land mines-they are designed to kill or maim people. Yet, in both cases, the fact that these may be considered evil designs does not detract from the simple claim that they were indeed designed by an intelligent agent. Intelligent design does not say anything about benevolent design. Many features may be initially designed for good purposes, but then later become twisted and used for evil. See Pseudogenes or Psuedoscience for a full discussion of this issue. Also, intelligent design does not purport to be an explanation for every aspect of biology, but rather is an explanation for the origin of irreducible complexity in biology when it is appropriate to invoke as the best explanation. For example, Dr. Fierer mentions that genetic variation in hemoglobin in human populations can be attributed to microevolution. Dr. Fierer is probably right. But ID doesn't try to account for trivial microevolutionary variation within a species type changes. Rather, ID focuses on the origin of novel functions, forms, genes, and biochemical pathways in the first place. The genetic variation in human hemoglobin molecules represents a trivial change in biological complexity as it represents just a few amino acid substitutions within the same gene. It is surely something which could be easily accounted for via natural selection. If intelligent design is not the best explanation for such changes, so be it. But when we are dealing with the origin of biological novelty, such as entirely new structures (like the bacterial flagellum) or genes (such as the entire globin family of genes), perhaps intelligent design is a better explanation. Perhaps Neo-Darwinism is the best explanation for the origin of genetic variation among hemoglobin genes within the human population. This does not challenge intelligent design theory. This may thus reflect a misunderstanding about intelligent design theory on the part of Dr. Fierer. Dr. Fierer seems to assume that if intelligent design is invoked, that it therefore must be invoked to explain everything, including the origin of genetic variation among humans with regard to the sequence of hemoglobin protines. However, a cursory look at ID literature indicates that ID proponents have rigorous tests where they do not always infer intelligent design, particularly when law/chance based processes, such as the Darwinian selection-mutation mechanism, are the best explanations. Response to Comments by Ajit P. Varki:
Response: It is a terrible thing that people were persecuted for their beliefs in the past. Unfortunately, this persecution continues today. People today are rarely killed because of their beliefs (though it does happen in some countries), but a form of intellectual persecution still takes place. Some scientists close their minds and ridicule intelligent design proponents, and evolution is shielded from criticism in schools by people who want to censor scientific evidence from students. Those who question evolution are ridicule called promoters of “lunacy” or “intellectual drivel.” (See Professor Archibald’s comments below.) This illiberal and anti-intellectual approach to dealing with important scientific issues promotes the same spirit which drove the Inquisition. Only today, the situation is in the reverse, for it is the materialists who are being the dogmatists and seeking to oust those with anti-materialistic ideas from the public voice. Regarding faith, evolution does have evidence supporting it, but much of it is also faith based. Richard Lewontin wrote that opposition to intelligent design comes not from evidence, but from a faith based commitment to materialist mindset: Intelligent design theory seeks to liberate science from its faith-based commitment to methodological naturalism and help science take off its philosophical blinders and consider the empirical, testable claim that life was designed. As discussed previously, intelligent design is not based upon faith but rather uses the scientific method to make its claims. Dr. Varki does not appear to be familiar with the writings of intelligent design proponents because he assumes that ID proponents make arguments based upon faith or religious authority. Indeed, in his 1998 Cambridge University Press book The Design Inference, William Dembski lays out the theoretical grounds for inferring design and makes no reliance upon faith and uses strictly empirical arguments. In his 1998 peer reviewed book, “The Design Inference,” (Cambridge University Press) William Dembski lays out the theory by which we detect design. This book makes no reliance upon religious texts, and is a strictly empirical argument for detecting design. It is not a religious argument. Thus, intelligent design is not based “strictly on faith” but rather makes no reliance upon faith in making its arguments. Thus, it is wrong to compare intelligent design to anything which is based "striclty on faith." Dr. Varki here compares belief in intelligent design to belief that the earth is the center of the universe. Incidentally, many of the scientists who helped lay the foundations of modern cosmology and physics, such as Kepler and Newton, both were proponents of intelligent design. Kepler, who discovered that planets orbit the sun in elliptical orbits, wrote that "We see how God, like a human architect, approached the founding of the world according to order and rule and measured everything in such a manner." (Johannes Kepler, quoted in: J. H. Tiner, Johannes Kepler-Giant of Faith and Science, Mott Media, Milford, Michigan (USA), 1977, pg. 178.) If one were to be consistent with faulty reasoning such as this, then the scientific method, physics, and the theory of electro-magnetism must also be religious – Sir Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, and Michael Faraday are just a few Christian forefathers of modern science whom were often motivated by their belief in God in their scientific conceptions. Dr. Varki may choose not to have any discussion or dialogue with intelligent design proponents. But taking the “ostrich approach” (i.e. stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away) to intelligent design only helps fair-minded people see that such scientists have closed minds and metaphysical blinders on that are keeping them from objectively dealing with the debate over intelligent design. Although we are saddened when evolutionists take this approach, I must admit that the IDEA Center benefits greatly when evolutionists pretend that we aren’t worth talking to, because fair-minded students can see right through this bluff, and it has the effect of exponentially increasing student interest and curiosity in intelligent design. That’s why IDEA Clubs are appearing on so many prominent university campuses around the United States. We hope that evolutionists will be interested in dialogue, but for those who aren’t, the world is clearly moving on without them, and student interest continues to grow. Incidentally, Dr. Varki's proclamation of boycotting mere dialogue with intelligent design proponents exposes the harsh and philosophically biased political climate found in some scientific circles against intelligent design. In such circles, it is impossible for intelligent design theorists, even when they are credentialed and making credible arguments, to gain a fair hearing before other scientists who have the mentality of Dr. Varki. No wonder ID proponents are rejected when they submit their work to scientific journals--there is an incredibly harsh bias against them in some circles of scientific community! Thankfully, some evolutionary biologists are recogizing that the ostrich strategy is working against them. Both a recent article by evolutionary biologist Allen Orr in The New Yorker, and a recent article in Nature recommended that biologists not take the ostrich approach and begin addressing intelligent design. As Orr wrote, ignoring ID stems from a desire to not legitimize intelligent design as a science. But both articles recommend that scientists not ignore intelligent design. Thus, Dr. Varki's attitude towards intelligent design is at odds with what was published on the cover of Nature on April 28, 2005, and also at odds with the attitude of evolutionary biologists such as Allen Orr. Finally, Dr. Varki employs the refuted “religious people once advocated the false belief that the earth was flat in contravention to science” myth. In fact, educated religious people never promoted the notion that the earth was flat. As documented by UC Santa Barbara history professor Jeffrey Burton Russell “with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat.” [65] Historian Russell concludes his article as follows: But that is not the truth.” [66]
Response: Sadly, Dr. Archibald’s response contains much emotionally-based rhetoric and harsh language, and thus it is difficult to discern the substance behind his comments. Additionally, Dr. Archibald's response exposes the intense psychological and political opposition faced by intelligent design theorists among scientists who will not even speak to intelligent design proponents about the issue. A couple claims can be gleaned from Dr. Archibald's response and responded to. Dr. Archibald compares ID to witchcraft, astrology, and alchemy. It is inappropriate and fallacious to compare intelligent design to alchemy, astrology, or witchcraft. There is no empirical support for alchemy, witchcraft, or astrology, while there is empirical support for intelligent design. Government-funded scientists, such as the famous Carl Sagan, have already attempted to detect design in radiosignals from outerspace in the SETI project, and thus scientists are already employing the very reasoning Dr. Archibald calls "lunacy" and "drivel." Additionally, design has been taken seriously a legitimate conclusion in physics for many years. Consider these quotes from physicists: "Taken together they [lists of design evidences] provide impressive evidence that life as we know it depends very sensitively on the form of the laws of physics, and on some seemingly fortuitous accidents in the actual values that nature has chosen for various particle masses, force strengths, and so on. If we could play God, and select values for these natural quantities at whim by twiddling a set of knobs, we would find that almost all knob settings would render the universe uninhabitable. Some knobs would have to be fine-tuned to enormous precision if life is to flourish in the universe" (Paul Davies, "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Science", in John Marks Templeton, Evidence of Purpose (New York: The Continuum Publishing Company, 1996), p. 46.) "The more I study science, the more I believe in God." (Albert Einstein) "The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgment, is overwhelming. The belief that there is "something behind it all" is one that I personally share with, I suspect, a majority of physicists." (Davies, Paul C.W. [Physicist and Professor of Natural Philosophy, University of Adelaide], "The Christian perspective of a scientist," Review of "The way the world is," by John Polkinghorne, New Scientist, Vol. 98, No. 1354, pp.638-639, 2 June 1983, p.638) "If I were a religious man, I would say that everything we have learned about life in the past twenty years shows that we are unique, and therefore, special in God's sight." (University of Virginia astronomers R.T. Rood and J.S. Trefil in their book Are We Alone) "Let us recognize these speculations for what they are. They are not physics but, in the strictest sense, metaphysics. There is no purely scientific reason to believe in an ensemble of universes. By construction these other worlds are unknowable by us. A possible explanation of equal intellectual respectability - and to my mind greater economy and elegance would be that this one world is the way it is because it is the creation of the will of a Creator who purposes that it should be so." (Polkinghorne, John C.* [former Professor of Mathematical Physics, Cambridge University, and Anglican priest], "One World: The Interaction of Science and Theology," [1986], SPCK: London, 1987, p.80) "The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy ... For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (Robert Jastrow (1978), God and the Astronomers) "Contemporary religious thinkers often approach the Argument from Design with a grim determination that their churches shall not again be made to look foolish. Recalling what happened when churchmen opposed first Galileo and then Darwin, they insist that religion must be based not on science but on faith. Philosophy, they announce, has demonstrated that Design Arguments lack all force. I hope to have shown that philosophy has demonstrated no such thing. Our universe, which these religious thinkers believe to be created by God, does look, greatly though this may dismay them, very much as if created by God." (John Leslie, Universes (London: Rougledge, 1989), pg. 40, 64-65, 22) "It is hard to resist the impression of something - some influence capable of transcending spacetime and the confinements of relativistic causality - possessing an overview of the entire cosmos at the instant of its creation, and manipulating all the causally disconnected parts to go bang with almost exactly the same vigour at the same time, and yet not so exactly Coordinated as to preclude the small scale, slight irregularities that eventually formed the galaxies, and us." (Paul Davies, the Accidental Universe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 73) Two claims implicated in these papers may be of interest to those wondering if Archibald is accurate to assert that intelligent design is “lunacy”: 1. Microbiology: Darwin himself proposed a test where “[i]f it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications” then his theory would “absolutely break down.”[69] Darwin believed he could find “no such case”[70] but the biotechnological revolution has revealed a universe of micro-machines unimagined by Darwin. One such machine is the bacterial flagellum, an outboard rotary motor for propelling bacteria. In Darwin’s Black Box, Behe explains the flagellum requires a minimum core of parts to function.[71] It is “irreducibly complex” because if it was less complex, its function would cease. Irreducible complexity meets Darwin’s test because natural selection cannot preserve features which would have no function over the “numerous, successive, slight modifications” of their evolution. 2. The Fossil Record: About 530 million years ago, in what paleontologists call the “Cambrian explosion,” nearly every major living animal phylum appears in a geological instant. Prior to this mass-origin of diversity, there are no direct plausible evolutionary ancestors. In Dawkins’s words, these fossils appear “just planted there, without any evolutionary history.”[72] ID proponents see this ancestor-less appearance of mass-biological diversity as powerful evidence against Neo-Darwinism. This “explosion” is precisely what we would expect had an intelligent agent rapidly infused large amounts of information into the biosphere. As it turns out, these "explosions" are common in the history of life, and may represent many "design events" in the history of life. The burden is upon Dr. Archibald to establish that intelligent design is not the best explanation in these cases if he is to claim that intelligent design is “lunacy” or “drivel.” There are principled reasons why intelligent design is nothing like alchemy, witchcraft, or astrology: it all has to do with the data. There is much data supporting intelligent design, and non supporting alchemy, witchcraft, or astrology. The evidence for design is not coming from faith or superstition, but from reasonable interpretations of data. ID theorists have a case which cannot just be dismissed as “lunacy.” Dr. Archibald appears uninterested in taking intelligent design seriously. However, it is likely that Dr. Archibald's dogmatic opposition to design is stemming from the same philosophical reasons which caused physicist Arthur Eddington to bitterly oppose design in physics (despite the evidence): Dr. Archibald also implies that students should not learn about intelligent design. Should students learn about such alternative scientific ideas? Yes. That's what the National Science Standards say. The National Science Education Standards recommend that students engage in “identification of assumptions, use of critical and logical thinking, and consideration of alternative explanations.”[73] Yes. That's what the US Senate Said:
Response: Dr. Demere should be commended for admitting that he isn’t familiar with intelligent design theory, as he is the only scientist quoted in this article who was willing to be honest and open about his limited experience with intelligent design. Dr. Demere admits that he has only relied upon internet sources and has not taken the time to read any of the actual primary publications of ID proponents. He should be commended for acknowledging that he has not read some of the primary and major works of ID proponents such as Darwin’s Black Box, The Design Inference, or Debating Design. He makes various complaints against the arguments allegedly used on various intelligent design websites. However, absent any references or quotations, his arguments are mere assertions and it is impossible to respond to them directly. Clearly, however, intelligent design theory does not just say “that because the natural world is so complex, it must have been created by an intelligent designer.” This sounds more like a caricature of intelligent design, and Dr. Demere is challenged to provide an actual reference to bolster that claim. Had Dr. Demere wanted to be sure he understood intelligent design theory before commenting on it publicly, there are many peer-reviewed publications on the subject by its proponents or sympathizers. As noted at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science, the following are scholarly peer-reviewed science-publications have supported intelligent design theory or intelligent design ideas:
Response: Intelligent design theory is not just giving up and then appealing to a designer. Philosophers often use the "correspondence theory of truth" truth to describe the aim of science. According to the "correspondence theory of truth," something is true if it corresponds to an actual fact. Science is supposed to discover things which correspond to facts. If it is true that intelligent design is a cause in the origin and diversification of life on earth, then to not consider intelligent design would be to cause science to not correspond to a fact about the origin and diversification of life on earth. To fail to consider intelligent design as a cause in the origin and diversification of life on earth would be to "stop" science from fulfilling its goal to develop better and more accurate explanations for the causes of natural phenomena. Furthermore, intelligent design is not just based upon giving up on naturalistic explanations. Intelligent design is a casually adequate explanation for the origin of biological complexity: we infer design because we have positive predictions that a designer can create the type of complexity found in the cell. Stephen C. Meyer explains: “Agents can arrange matter with distant goals in mind. In their use of language, they routinely ‘find’ highly isolated and improbable functional sequences amid vast spaces of combinatorial possibilities.”[77] "Indeed, in all cases where we know the causal origin of 'high information content,' experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role."[78] Fears over intelligent design often come from the claim that intelligent design would mean "giving up" on evolution, or the end of scientific investigation. These objections may be less visible to the public eye, but are at least equally important in the mind of the scientist. Biologist Rudolph Raff objects to design theory saying, "as the influence of the intelligent designer grows … the relationships between the phenomena and explanations becomes increasingly arbitrary … [until] one reaches a point where all biological features are 'special creations' and other explanations become unnecessary."[79] Here, Raff is not necessarily afraid that we are mixing science with religion, but that design is a sort of "science stopper." In fact, design theorist William Dembski sees Raff's arguments as typifying the reasons for the exclusion of design from science: In calling what Kepler did a "mistake," Dembski shows that he doesn't want intelligent design theory to take over biology or all of science science. Intelligent design theorists want design to be inferred where the evidence warrants--no more, and no less. The methods of ID theorists ensure that we will exclusively infer design only if it appears to be what is produced by an intelligent agent, and we know that other causal mechanisms are incapable of producing the data. If the evidence points to evolution, and that has non-scientific religious implications away from theism, so be it. If the empirical evidence points to design so be it. The important thing is to follow the evidence wherever it leads! That's the glory of science! Avenues of Research Opened by intelligent design theory: William Dembski offers the following philosophical and/or scientific avenues of investigation that could follow from research into intelligent design theory:[81] • 2. Functionality Problem --- What is a designed object's function? • 3. Transmission Problem --- How does an object's design trace back historically? (search for narrative) • 4. Construction Problem --- How was a designed object constructed? • 5. Reverse-Engineering Problem --- How could a designed object have been constructed? • 6. Perturbation Problem --- How has the original design been modified and what factors have been modified? • 7. Variability Problem --- What degree of perturbation allows continued functioning? • 8. Restoration Problem --- Once perturbed, how can original design be recovered? • 9. Constraints Problem --- What are the constraints within which a designed object functions well and outside of which it breaks? • 10. Optimality Problem --- In what way is the design optimal? • 11. Ethical Problem --- Is the design morally right? • 12. Aesthetic Problem --- Is the design beautiful? • 13. Intentionality Problem --- What was the intention of the designer? • 14. Identity Problem --- Who is the designer? Elsewhere, Dembski outlined a research program for design in detail in "Three Frequently Asked Questions about Intelligent Design":[82] • Methods of Design Detection. Methods of design detection are widely employed in various special sciences (e.g., archeology, cryptography, and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence or SETI). Design theorists investigate the scope and validity of such methods. • Biological Information. What is the nature of biological information? How do function and fitness relate to it? What are the obstacles that face material mechanisms in attempting to generate biological information? What are the theoretical and empirical grounds for thinking that intelligence is indispensable to the origin of biological information? • Evolvability. Evolutionary biology’s preferred research strategy consists in taking distinct biological systems and finding similarities that might be the result of a common evolutionary ancestor. Intelligent design, by contrast, focuses on a different strategy, namely, taking individual biological systems and perturbing them (both intelligently and randomly) to see how much the systems can evolve. Within this latter research strategy, limitations on evolvability by material mechanisms constitute indirect confirmation of design. • Evolutionary Computation. Organisms employ evolutionary computation to solve many of the tasks of living (cf. the immune system in vertebrates). But does this show that organisms originate through some form of evolutionary computation (as through a Darwinian evolutionary process)? Are GPGAs (General Purpose Genetic Algorithms) like the immune system designed or the result of evolutionary computation? Need these be mutually exclusive? Evolutionary computation occurs in the behavioral repertoire of organisms but is also used to account for the origination of certain features of organisms. Design theorists explore the relationship between these two types of evolutionary computation as well as any design intrinsic to them. One aspect of this research is writing and running computer simulations that investigate the scope and limits of evolutionary computation. One such simulation is the MESA program (Monotonic Evolutionary Simulation Algorithm) by William Dembski. It is available online at www.iscid.org/mesa. • Technological Evolution (TRIZ). The only well-documented example we have of the evolution of complex multipart integrated functional systems (as we see in biology) is the technological evolution of human inventions. In the second half of the twentieth century, Russian scientists and engineers studied hundreds of thousands of patents to determine how technologies evolve. They codified their findings in a theory to which they gave the acronym TRIZ, which in English translates to Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (see Semyon 3 Savransky, Engineering of Creativity: Introduction to TRIZ Methodology of Inventive Problem Solving, CRC Publishers, 2000). The picture of technological evolution that emerges out of TRIZ parallels remarkably the history of life as we see it in the fossil record and includes the following: (1) New technologies (cf. major groups like phyla and classes) emerge suddenly as solutions to inventive problems. Such solutions require major conceptual leaps (i.e., design). As soon as a useful new technology is developed, it is applied immediately and as widely as possible (cf. convergent evolution). (2) Existing technologies (cf. species and genera) can, by contrast, be modified by trial-anderror tinkering (cf. Darwinian evolution), which amounts to solving routine problems rather than inventive problems. (The distinction between routine and inventive problems is central to TRIZ. In biology, irreducible complexity suggests one way of making the analytic cut between these types of problems. Are there other ways?) (3) Technologies approach ideality (cf. local optimization by means of natural selection) and thereafter tend not change (cf. stasis). (4) New technologies, by supplanting old technologies, can upset the ideality and stasis of the old technologies, thus forcing them to evolve in new directions (requiring the solution of new inventive problems, as in an arms race) or by driving them to extinction. Mapping TRIZ onto biological evolution provides a especially promising avenue of design theoretic research. • Strong Irreducible Complexity of Molecular Machines and Metabolic Pathways. For certain enzymes (which are themselves highly complicated molecular structures) and metabolic pathways (i.e., systems of enzymes where one enzyme passes off its product to the next, as in a production line), simplification leads not to different functions but to the complete absence of all function. Systems with this feature exhibit a strengthened form of irreducible complexity. Strong irreducible complexity, as it may be called, entails that no Darwinian account can in principle be given for the emergence of such systems. Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the founders of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, once remarked that to talk about prebiotic natural selection is a contradiction in terms—the idea being that selection could only select for things that are already functional. Research on strong irreducible complexity finds and analyzes biological systems that cannot in principle be grist for natural selection’s mill. For this research, which is only now beginning, to be completely successful would imply the unraveling of molecular Darwinism. • Natural and Artificial Biological Design (Bioterrorist Genetic Engineering). We are on the cusp of a bioengineering revolution whose fallout is likely to include bioterrorism. Thus we can expect to see bioterror forensics emerge as a practical scientific discipline. How will such forensic experts distinguish the terrorists’ biological designs from naturally occurring biological designs? • Design of the Environment and Ecological Fine-Tuning. The idea that ecosystems are fine-tuned to support a harmonious balance of plant and animal life is old. How does this balance come about. Is it the result of blind Darwinian forces competing with one another and leading to a stable equilibrium? Or is there design built into such ecosystems? Can such ecosystems be improved through conscious design or is “monkeying” with such systems invariably counterproductive? Design-theoretic research promises to become a significant factor in scientific debates over the environment. • Steganographic Layering of Biological Information. Steganography belongs to the field of digital data embedding technologies (DDET), which also include information hiding, steganalysis, watermarking, embedded data extraction, and digital data forensics. 4 Steganography seeks efficient (high data rate) and robust (insensitive to common distortions) algorithms that can embed a high volume of hidden message bits within a cover message (typically imagery, video, or audio) without their presence being detected. Conversely, steganalysis seeks statistical tests that will detect the presence of steganography in a cover message. Key research question: To what degree do biological systems incorporate steganography, and if so, is biosteganography demonstrably designed? • Cosmological Fine-Tuning and Anthropic Coincidences. Although this is a well worn area of study, there are some new developments here. Guillermo Gonzalez, assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Iowa State University, and Jay Richards, a senior fellow with Seattle’s Discovery Institute, have a forthcoming book titled The Privileged Planet (along with a video based on the book) in which they make a case for planet earth as intelligently designed not only for life but also for scientific discovery. In other words, they argue that our world is designed to facilitate the scientific discovery of its own design. Aspects of Gonzalez’s work in this area have been featured on the cover story of the October 2001 Scientific American. • Astrobiology, SETI, and the Search for a General Biology. What might life on other planets look like? Is it realistic to think that there is life, and even conscious life, on other planets? What are the defining features that any material system must possess to be alive? How simple can a material system be and still be alive (John von Neumann posed this question over half a century ago in the context of cellular automata)? Insofar as such systemsdisplay intelligent behavior, must that intelligence be derived entirely from its material constitution or can it transcend yet nevertheless guide its behavior (cf. the mechanism vs. vitalism debate)? Is there a testable way to decide this last question? How, if at all, does quantum mechanics challenge a purely mechanistic conception of life? Design theorists are starting to investigate these questions. • Consciousness, Free Will, and Mind-Brain Studies. Is conscious will an illusion—we think that we have acted freely and deliberately toward some end, but in fact our brain acted on its own and then deceived us into thinking that we acted deliberately. This is the majority position in the cognitive neuroscience community, and a recent book makes just that claim in its title: The Illusion of Conscious Will by Harvard psychologist Daniel Wegner. But there is now growing evidence that consciousness is not reducible to material processes of the brain and that free will is in fact real. Jeffrey Schwartz at UCLA along with quantum physicist Henry Stapp at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory are two of the key researchers presently providing experimental and theoretical support for the irreducibility of mind to brain (see Schwartz’s book The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force). • Autonomy vs. Guidance. Many scientists worry that intelligent design attempts to usurp nature’s autonomy. But that is not the case. Intelligent design is attempting to restore a proper balance between nature’s autonomy and teleologic guidance. Prior to the rise of modern science all the emphasis was on teleologic guidance (typically in the form of divine design). Now the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme, and all the emphasis is on nature’s autonomy (an absolute autonomy that excludes design). Where is the point of balance that properly respects both, and in which design becomes empirically evident? The search for that balance-point underlies all design-theoretic research. It’s not all design or all nature but a synergy of the two. Unpacking that synergy is the intelligent design research program in a nutshell. This incident shows that sometimes expectations and predictions from evolutionary theory may be slowing scientific research. Had intelligent design expectations been at work, we might have had quicker insights the workings of genetics which might even lead to medical advances! Had scientists considered intelligent design, then they may have taken seriously the possibility that these introns had function, and perhaps science would have advanced much quicker in our understanding of the function of various types of non-coding DNA. Intelligent design has recently led to insight about the workings of centrioles in the cell. Jonathan Wells writes how he used design expectations to analyze centrioles in the cell:
Response: As noted, intelligent design is not based upon “faith” but is based upon empirical observations of how intelligent agents operate, and studies of natural objects to determine if those objects contain the tell-tale signs that an intelligent agent had been at work. Such a scientific study requires tenacious investigation. Thus, there is no danger that teaching students about the empirical validity ID would lead to the advocation of religious ideas such as faith healing. In fact, as William Dembski writes, a science curriculum teaching ID would not look very different from current science curricula: Unfotunately, it is exceedingly clear that many scientists reject design a prior not because of evidence, but because of their own philosophical assumptions. Consider these quotes from Darwinists who reject design not because of evidence, but because of naturalistic assumptions they are invoking: “The statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes. ... The theory of evolution is one of these explanations.”(Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, National Academy Press, 1998, pg. 42, emphasis added) “It was Darwin’s greatest accomplishment to show that the directive organization of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process, natural selection, without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent...[Darwin’s] mechanism, natural selection, excluded God as the explanation...” (Francisco Ayala [evolutionist scientist], “Darwin’s Revolution,” in Creative Evolution?!, eds. J. Campbell and J. Schopf (Boston, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1994), pp. 4-5, emphasis added) "Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule. Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural." (Richard E. Dickerson [evolutionist scientist]: "The Game of Science." Perspectives on Science and Faith (Volume 44, June 1992), p. 137, emphasis added) “Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.” (“Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought” E. Mayr [evolutionist scientist], Scientific American, pg. 82-83, (July 2000), emphasis added) “[F]or many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion ... [A]t some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things come what may.” ("Nonliteralist Antievolution," Ruse, Michael [evolutionist philosopher of science], AAAS Symposium: "The New Antievolutionism," February, 1993, Boston, MA., emphasis added) "[W]e have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations…that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (Lewontin, Richard [evolutionist scientist], "Billions and Billions of Demons", New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28., emphasis added) “If there is one rule, one criterion that makes an idea scientific, it is that it must invoke naturalistic explanations for phenomena … it’s simply a matter of definition—of what is science, and what is not." (Eldredge, Niles, 1982, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, Washington Square Press) “…any statement concerning the existence, nonexistence, or nature of a creator or creators is not science by definition and has no place in scientific discussion.” (Pine, R.H., 1984, “But Some of Them Are Scientists, Aren’t They?” Creation/Evolution, Issue XIV, pp. 6-18) Intelligent design proponents would thus agree with Dr. Demere's comments about the need to let the evidence--not philosophical preferences--guide our research. After all, it was ID proponents who drafted and submitted the "Santorum Resolution" to the U.S. Senate, which sanctioned helping students to recognize when philosophical claims are being made rather than letting the scientific data speak for itself: Response to Comments by Michael Mayer:
Response: To reiterate, intelligent design is not “throwing in the towel.” Rather, it is acknowledging that various features of nature match what we would expect to find based upon our studies of what intelligent agents tend to produce. Dr. Mayer is absolutely correct to state that “historical events that were not witnessed can never be understood with absolute certainty, but that doesn't mean we can't study them, test hypotheses or construct the most likely interpretation of them” and this is precisely why intelligent design is a viable scientific hypothesis. We can look at various aspects of nature and ask “would intelligent design, as an event in the history of life, be the best explanation to account for the origin of this structure?” Intelligent design asks this simple and compelling question—and simply asks scientists to be willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads! Response to Comments by Michael Simpson:
Response: Dr. Simpson gets some things wrong here, but also gets many things right here. He is wrong to think that intelligent design is based upon superstition or that it is “hokum.” Intelligent design is based upon empirical arguments which use the scientific method. Intelligent design proponents make their arguments for scientific reasons, and do not base their arguments upon religions assumptions.
However, Dr. Simpson is right that for many people, this is a religious/faith
question. For example, prominent
evolutionary scientists Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins rely upon their
belief in evolution to bolster their materialist worldviews.
“Materialism” entails the belief that nothing other than the
blind and unguided forces of nature are responsible for our existence.
For years, some leading scientific promoters of evolution have advocated
that humanity is “the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not
have [us] in mind.”[83] Not all evolutionist scientists project such
theological views on to their science, but a significant contingency of
prominent Darwinists have advocated this ideology.
The late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould profoundly
impacted American science education, yet himself wrote that
Darwin “took away our status as paragons
created in the image of God.”[84]
According to Gould, although “we may yearn for a ‘higher’ answer” than
evolution, in fact, “none exists.”[85]
Intellectuals on the other side of the
Atlantic seem to concur.
Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public
Understanding of Science at Oxford
University, presses the public to understand that “
Darwin made it possible
to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”[86]
[1] Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information by William Dembski [2] Stephen C. Meyer, "The Explanatory Power of Design," in Mere Creation, pg. 140 (William A. Dembski ed., InterVarsity Press 1998). [3] Stephen C. Meyer, “The Cambrian Information Explosion,” Debating Design, pg. 388 (Dembski and Ruse eds., Cambridge University Press 2004). [4] Stephen C. Meyer, DNA and Other Designs. (http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_dnaotherdesigns.htm) [5] (Meyer S. C. et. al., "The Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang," in Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, edited by J. A. Campbell and S. C. Meyer (Michigan State University Press, 2003) [6] (Nelson and Wells, Homology in Biology, in Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, pg. 316, 318 (John Angus Campbell, ed. Michigan State University Press 2003). [7] See Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987). [8] William Dembski, The Design Revolution, pg. 42. [9] Of Pandas and People (2nd ed, 1993), pg. 7, emphasis added. [10] Of Pandas and People (2nd ed, 1993), pg. 126-127, emphasis added. [11] Of Pandas and People (2nd ed, 1993), pg. 161, emphasis added. [12] Michael Behe, "The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis," Philosophia Christi, Series 2, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2001), pg. 165, emphasis added. [13] Michael Behe, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 02/08/01. [14] William Dembski, No Free Lunch, pg. 314, emphasis added. [15] Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, pg. 197. [16] William Dembski, The Design Revolution, pg. 40. [17] William Dembski, The Design Revolution, pg. 42-43. [18] William Dembski, >Commentary on Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch's "Guest Viewpoint: 'Intelligent design' Not Accepted by Most Scientists, emphasis added. [19] William Dembski, The Design Revolution, pg. 42-43. [20] William Dembski, No Free Lunch, pg. 223. [21] William Dembski, The Design Revolution, pg. 42-43. [22] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pg. 18 (W.W. Norton, 1996 edition. [23] “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," by Stephen C. Meyer, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2) (August, 2004):213-39 [24] See M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664. [25] Eldredge, N., Reinventing Darwin, p. 95 (1995) [26] Carroll, R., Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, pgs. 8-10 (1997). [27] Pagel M., "Happy accidents?," Nature, Vol 397, pg. 665 (February 25, 1999). [28] Mayr, E., What Evolution Is, pg. 189 (2001). [29] Denton, M., Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, pg. 193 (1986). [30] Ohno, S., "The notion of the Cambrian pananimalia genome," Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol 93 pg. 8475-8478 (August 1996). [31] Barnes, R.S.K., P. Calow, P.J.W. Olive, D.W. Golding, J.I. Spicer. The Invertebrates: A New Synthesis 3rd Ed. (2001) [32] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pg. 229 (W.W. Norton, 1996 edition). [33] William Dembski, The Design Revolution, pg. 45. [34] Dembski, The Design Revolution, pg. 45. [35] Stephen C. Meyer, "The Explanatory Power of Design," in Mere Creation, pg. 140 (William A. Dembski ed., InterVarsity Press 1998). [36] Stephen C. Meyer, “The Cambrian Information Explosion,” Debating Design, pg. 388 (Dembski and Ruse eds., Cambridge University Press 2004). [37] Stephen C. Meyer, DNA and Other Designs. (http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_dnaotherdesigns.htm) [38] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pg. 230. [39] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pg. 6. [40] William Dembski, The Design Revolution, pg. 46. [41] Stephen C. Meyer, DNA and Other Designs, http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_dnaotherdesigns.htm. [42] Senior writer for Scientific American, John Horgan, The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age, Little, Brown & Co: London, 1997, p138. [43] Dose, Klaus, "The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988, p.348. [44] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, ed. J. W. Burrow (London: Penguin Group, 1985), (1859), 219. [45] Michael Behe, at http://www.idthefuture.com/index.php?p=405&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1. [46] "Prebiotic Synthesis in Atmospheres Containing CH4, CO, and CO2" by S. Miller, G. Schlesinger, Journal of Molecular Evolution 19:376-382 (1983) [47] The Origins of Life on the Earth, by S. L. Miller and L. E. Orgel, p. 33 (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Halt, 1974) [48] "Prebiotic Synthesis in Atmospheres Containing CH4, CO, and CO2" by S. Miller, G. Schlesinger, Journal of Molecular Evolution 19:376-382 (1983); The Origins of Life on the Earth, by S. L. Miller and L. E. Orgel, p. 33 (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Halt, 1974) [49] "Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth," P. Abelson, PNAS USA, 55:1365-1372 (1966); "Peptides and the Origin of Life," B. M. Rode, Peptides, 20:773-776 (1999) [50] "Prebiotic Synthesis in Atmospheres Containing CH4, CO, and CO2" by S. Miller, G. Schlesinger, Journal of Molecular Evolution 19:376-382 (1983) [51] "Prebiotic Synthesis in Atmospheres Containing CH4, CO, and CO2" by S. Miller, G. Schlesinger, Journal of Molecular Evolution 19:376-382 (1983). , Phillip Abelson, "Discussion of a Paper by Stanley Miller," Annals of New York Academy of Sciences69 (1957) 274-275); Sidney W. Fox & Klause Doxe, Molecular Evolution ahd the Origin of Life, Revised ed. (1977); Henrich D. Holland, The Chemical Evolution of the Atmosphere and Oceans, (1984); Shapiro, R., Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth (1986). [52] Statements made by Dr. Edward Peltzer, at the IDEA Conference 2002. Dr. Peltzer obtained his doctorate degree under Stanley Miller in 1979; Seven Clues to the Origin of Life: A Scientific Detective Story, A.G. Cairns-Smith, pg. 44-45 (Cambridge University Press, 1993). [53] Levy, Matthew and Stanley Miller. The Stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life. Proceedings of National Academy of Science, USA (Vol. 95, pg. 7933-7938) [54] Levy, Matthew and Stanley Miller. The Stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life. Proceedings of National Academy of Science, USA (Vol. 95, pg. 7933-7938); Canuto V. M., Levine, J. S., Augustsson, T. R., Imhoff, C. L., Giampapa, M. S. "The young Sun and the atmosphere and photochemistry of the early Earth". Nature Vol 305, September 22, 1983, pg. 281-286; Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Md.: Adler and Adler, 1985), pg. 261) [55] The Search for Life's Origins. National Research Council Space Studies Board, National Academy Press: Washington D.C., 1990, pg. 66, 67, 126). [56] Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth," P. Abelson, PNAS USA, 55:1365-1372 (1966). [57] "The prebiotic synthesis of organic compounds as a step toward the origin of life," S. L. Miller, Major Events in the History of Life (London: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1992) [58] Levy, Matthew and Stanley Miller. The Stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life. Proceedings of National Academy of Science, USA (Vol. 95, pg. 7933-7938);Lazcano, A., 1997. The tempo and modes of prebiotic evolution. In: Cosmovici,C.B., Bowyer, S., Wertheimer, D. Eds., Astronomical and Biochemical Origins and the Search for Life in the Universe. Editrice Compositori, pp. 419430 [59] Schopf, J. William in Exobiology (edited by Cyril Ponnamperuma), North-Holland Publishing Company: Amsterdam-London, 1972 in the Precambrian paleobiology chapter, Pg. 27. [60]Lasaga, Antonio, H. D. Holland, M. J. Dwyer. "Primordial Oil Slick". Science vol 174, Oct 4, 1971 pg. 53-55 [61] Biogenesis: Theories of Life's Origins, N. Lahav, p138-139 (Oxford University Press, 1999). [62] "Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth," P. Abelson, PNAS USA, 55:1365-1372 (1966). [63] The Search for Life's Origins. National Research Council Space Studies Board, National Academy Press: Washington D.C., 1990, pg. 66, 67, 126) [64] Lewontin, R., "Billions and Billions of Demons," The New York Review, January 1997, p. 31. [65] The Myth of the Flat Earth by Jeffrey Burton Russell, available at http://www.id.ucsb.edu/fscf/LIBRARY/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html. [66] The Myth of the Flat Earth by Jeffrey Burton Russell, available at http://www.id.ucsb.edu/fscf/LIBRARY/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html. [67] Debating Design (William A. Dembski & Michael Ruse eds., Cambridge University Press 2004). Another similar of a scholarly publication advocating ID theory is William Dembski’s The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press 1998). [68] Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2) (August, 2004):213-39; Michael J. Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004); Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force,” Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum 98 (2005):71-96. [69] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, ed. J. W. Burrow (London: Penguin Group, 1985), (1859), 219. [70] Id. [71] Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box 51-73 (Free Press, 1996). [72] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker 229 (W.W. Norton, 1996 edition). [73] National Research Council, National Science Education Standards (National Academy Press, 1996), 23. [74] Congressional Record, 107th Cong., 1st sess., 2001, pt. 147:S6147-53 (amendment submitted by Sen. Santorum); this resolution passed with overwhelming bi-partisan support with a vote of 91-8 in the U.S. Senate. [75] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, ed. J. W. Burrow (London: Penguin Group, 1985), (1859), 66. [76] Stephen C. Meyer, "The Explanatory Power of Design," in Mere Creation, pg. 140 (William A. Dembski ed., InterVarsity Press 1998). [77] Stephen C. Meyer, “The Cambrian Information Explosion,” Debating Design, pg. 388 (Dembski and Ruse eds., Cambridge University Press 2004. [78] Stephen C. Meyer, DNA and Other Designs (http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_dnaotherdesigns.htm). [79] Raff, Rudolf A., "The creationist abuse of evo-devo." Evol Dev, 3(6): 373-374 (2001). [80] Dembski, W. A., "Introduction: Mere Creation", Mere Creation Science Faith & Intelligent Design, (InterVarsity Press, 1998) pg. 16. [81] Design as a Research Program: 14 Questions to Ask About Design (http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=view&id=259 [82] http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.09.ID_FAQ.pdf [83] George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution 179 (Yale University Press 1949). While Simpson goes on to say that it is “a gross misrepresentation to say we are just an accident or nothing but an animal,” his ultimate view is that that “[p]lan, purpose, goal, all absent in evolution to this point, enter with the coming of man and are inherent in the new evolution, which is confined to him.” Whether or not such a view is correct, it is strikingly at odds with traditional Western theism. [84] Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin 147 (W.W. Norton 1977). [85] Stephen Jay Gould quoted in The Meaning of Life 84 (David Friend and the Editors of Life Magazine eds., Little, Brown and Co. 1991). [86] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker 6 (W.W. Norton, 1996 edition). [87] See “NABT Unveils New Statement on Teaching Evolution,” 58 American Biology Teacher 61-62 (January, 1996). [88] See Karl W. Giberson & Donald A Yerxa, Species of Origins America’s Search for a Creation Story 6-7 (Rowman & Littlefield 2002); Michael N. Keas and Stephen C. Meyer, The Meaning of Evolution, discovery.org/scripts.viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=305 (last visited June 14, 2005). [89] Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology 658 (Prentice Hall 4th ed. 1998). [90] Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology 5 (Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998). [91] “Theory” is used with the understanding that the scientific community generally employs the term according to its technical definition as “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, and tested hypotheses.” National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism: A view from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd ed. (National Academy Press, 1999), 2. [92] Edward J. Larson & Larry Witham, “Scientists and Religion in America,” 281 Scientific American (September, 1999):88-93. |  Quick Link to Short Version of Response: Quick Links Within This Page: Response to comments by... Other Links: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
