Intelligent design

From Wikinfo

Jump to: navigation, search
See also Criticism of intelligent design

Intelligent Design (ID) is the position that life and living things show signs of having been designed by an intelligent agent. ID's primary argument is that life shows a type of complexity that points to an act of conscious and deliberate design, therefore very unlikely to have come about as a result of random chance.

Contents

Basic Definition

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID thus refutes the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection—how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in applying the findings of science toward understanding origins because origins, because of their historical nature, cannot be studied directly by science and because teaching origins unavoidably impacts religion.

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.

Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins which currently drive science education and research

An Illustrative Example

To give an example of intelligent design at work outside of biology, we can look at the geological record that reveals the great Bonneville Flood. This flood is known only on the basis of the geologic record, as it occurred before any recorded history of the area. Its route and estimated size can be reckoned from the size of boulders moved, the different effects of erosion in the differing hardnesses of the rock, the alluvial deposits, and other clues. All in all, the story is highly complex, but can be read by a trained geologist who knows the effects of water on rock.

Contrast that with a simple drawing on the beach, “Dick ♡ Jane” which is actually simpler than the evidence for the great Bonneville Flood, but it is a different type of complexity that reveals that intelligence was behind the creation of that drawing.

The clues that reveal intelligent design are regularly used by archeologists, as well as other researchers, to recognize traces of past human habitation, human made artifacts, in short, signs that information was used in the creation of those artifacts. The record of the Bonneville Flood needs no information in its creation, merely the physical action of water against rock. However, the drawing in the sand gives clues that information was used in its creation: information on symbolism, use of an alphabet, the expectation that it be deciphered, so that even though physically it is a simpler record, it reveals a type of complexity absent from that showing the Bonneville Flood.

Researchers studying biological systems, in particular the biochemical machinery within a cell, claim that they are finding evidences that information was used in the creation and maintenance of that machinery. DNA is recognized by all as a repository of information for the construction, maintenance and replication of cells. One way information is transfered within a cell uses RNA. Information is used to determine the identity and sequence of proteins to be delivered to a site within a cell for the construction of organelles. This is only a small list of some of the uses of information within a cell.

Researchers who champion Intelligent Design claim that there is no evidence anywhere where information can come from natural causes lacking information. Further, information is inextricably connected with intelligence. Therefore, the wide use of information within biological systems indicates that there was an intelligence behind the development of life.

Controversy concerning Intelligent Design

Advocates of ID believe there is empirical evidence that biological life was designed, therefore an Intelligent Designer has been at work in the history of life. ID itself does not specify the identity of the Designer. The major promoters take pains to emphasize that ID is the result of empirical, scientific observation, which is not the same as the Biblical account of creation.

Much of the controversy over ID stems from its advocates' desire to get the concept accepted as a scientific theory and taught as such in public schools. Opponents claim ID is a religious philosophy, and the common usage of ID is, in its most basic essence, no different from deism, while downplaying the religious nature of their (the opponents’) own beliefs.

The basic ID argument is similar to the argument from design presented by William Paley in his book Natural Theology, published in 1800. Charles Darwin reported being deeply influenced by Paley's book—required reading in his time—which he later rejected. Today the global scientific community overwhelmingly accepts and applies the ancient belief in the theory of evolution (see also natural selection) popularized by Charles Darwin and updated by many. One article supportive of Intelligent Design was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but the shoddy treatment given to the editor (who is an evolutionist) of the journal both by the institution where he worked and by the scientific community as a whole makes it very unlikely that another editor will dare to allow another article favorable of ID to be published.

Opponents of ID often often put forth the simplistic straw man argument that ID is part and parcel of creationism. Proponents put forth several differences. The theory does not argue for (or against) the Biblical record and it allows that the Designer(s) could be a nondivine alien race. Many ID proponents accept the common belief fixing the age of the Earth at about 4.55 billion years, compatible with evolution and Old Earth Creationism, while others are Young Earth Creationists.

Opponents of ID accuse it of existing only as a disguise to try to sneak creationism into school science textbooks while evading the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Proponents insist that it is a scientific theory, and is not connected to any specific religion. Opponents counter that the proponents are merely practicing a "big tent" strategy, uniting many groups with the common goal of introducing theism into the public school curriculum while at the same time claiming that their own faith is not a religion. This action shows a basic hypocrisy evidenced by opponents of ID, while they insist that the state use its coercive powers to inculcate their own religion, they want the same state to censor other religions even to the point of censoring other teachings that only peripherally support the opposed religions. One such teaching they want to censor is ID.

Intelligent Design and the Theory of Evolution

ID as commonly used accepts that there has been microevolution, i.e., populations of species have changed and diverged over time. It may or may not accept that there is speciation, the creation of more than one species out of a single species. Some proponents of ID accept the fossil record as an accurate representation of the history of the evolution of species, and accept that analysis of the fossil record gives accurate and useful results; others point to the geologic record and fossils as evidence for the world wide flood reported in Genesis as well as many other stories world wide.

It accepts that there may be a process of natural selection, although it may insist that the results of this process must be limited. Those who accept an ID theory that posits a guided evolution, such as theistic evolution, allow that once a variation has been caused due to deliberate acts of the unnamed intelligent designer, the survival or extinction of a newly arisen species is believed to then be subject to natural selection, although further acts of the designer are not ruled out. Other proponents of ID contend that creation was a one time event and that there have been no new “kinds” since that event.

Evolutionary vs. ID views

According to the theory of evolution, genetic variations occur randomly, and environmental stress selects against those variations that are not as advantageous as others. What ID proponents claim is that when they look at biological systems, particularly at the sub cellular level, they do not find the type of structures expected from random variations, rather they find a structure appears to have required design based on information and complex interactions, the opposite of random occurrences.

They also argue that complex organs that cannot function without all their parts provide evidence for a cause having intelligence. This is based on the recognition that for changes to occur, often it would require numerous changes to change simultaneously without which the organ is not only useless, but takes energy away from the organism making it less likely to survive. This idea is particularly pressed by Michael Behe under the rubric irreducible complexity in his Darwin's Black Box (1996; see reference above). See also: argument from design.

Proponents of Intelligent Design point to complex biological structures such as the eye, birds' wings, the existence of mitochondria, bacterial flagella, etc., arguing that such structures could not possibly have developed due purely to random mutations, even with the aid of natural selection. Symbiotic relationships, such as plants which can only be pollinated by a specific species of insect, which in turn can only reproduce by using the plant, could not have arisen, they argue—a typical chicken and egg problem. It is argued that these kinds of biological features are by their very nature too interdependent to come into existence independently through a natural process and then become so intricately intertwined.

Criticism of Intelligent Design

See Criticism of intelligent design and Criticism of criticism of intelligent design

The watch argument

A particularly famous example of an argument for ID is the "watch argument."

In 1802 theologian William Paley wrote that if a pocket watch is found on a field, it is most reasonable to assume that someone dropped it and that it was made by a watchmaker and not by natural forces. The basis for his argument is that a watch shows a complex combination of small parts where all of them needed to be thought through and designed before being made and put together, in order for the watch to work as designed. Contrast a man made watch with living organisms, where living organisms are orders of magnitude more complex in their interactions, how is that not evidence for a designer?

Many have attempted to refute Paley's argument, mainly by showing that highly complex systems can be produced by a series of very small randomly-generated steps. Richard Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker is one of the best known works following this idea. However, his book has its own flaws that make it unconvincing to many.

The debate over this is closely related to irreducible complexity, the idea that certain structures in biology can function only if all their substructures and support structures are present. It is argued that each substructure often confers no benefit on its own, and often the absence or malformation of one substructure can render the whole structure useless, therefore the structure would not have been selected for by an evolutionary mechanism. The probability of a single mutation or mutation event where multiple, synergistic mutations occur at the same time, creating all the substructures or even placing predesigned substructures all in the right places, with the proper support structures to aid in the construction and operation of the biological structure, is too low to be considered probable.

Additional arguments

Further, say many scientists, a body part or organ that has a modern function did not necessarily have the same function in the past. Evolution works on chance and opportunity, with gill bones of mouth-less fishes evolving into jaws, fish air bladders becoming vertebrate lungs, and fin support structures becoming fingers and toes. Some scientists have also argued that arguments like the watch argument actually damage the case for the ID theory. Specifically, some of them claim that life is often "poorly designed" on the macroscopic, cellular, and genetic levels. Others just say that we just don't have enough knowledge about the processes in living systems to draw this type of conclusion.

Broader view of "intelligent design"

Some people use the term "intelligent design" in a broader sense than that given in Intelligent Design Theory. It can refer simply to the belief that God designed the universe, without any specific claim as to how or when he did so. Many people consider this belief entirely compatible with standard Darwinian evolution, with no divine intervention—life could be produced by a purely natural process, evolution, designed by God. God might merely have written the laws of physics, or chosen the fundamental constants, and left the universe to run like clockwork afterwards. This could be a form of deism. The belief that the laws of the universe were constructed to allow for the development of intelligent life is known as the Anthropic Cosmological Principle. A theological view is theistic evolution (see e.g. Kenneth R. Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" cited above), which is too nuanced to explain here. Not all people who believe God was involved in the design of the Universe also adhere to the specifics of the belief proposed by young earth Creationists.

Public discourse

Intelligent Design has lately been a controversial subject, particularly in American tax supported schools. The reason for this controversy is the United States legal framework which disallows tax moneys to be spent in the promotion of a religious belief. What it comes down to is how does one define what is a religion?

After years of judicial rejection of Creationist teaching—on the grounds that Creationism is a religious theory, not a scientific theory—many Creationists have begun to promote Intelligent Design as a non-religious, scientifically acceptable alternative to the theory of Evolution. However, this attempt has met with strong opposition from many secular scientists. Their very vehemence in their opposition indicates that what they support is not a scientific belief, rather a religious faith, namely a faith in secularism, of which a faith in neo-Darwinian evolution forms an integral part.

In 2008, the documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, by actor Ben Stein attacked academic institutions and the scientific community for not allowing a full debate of all the issues surrounding Intelligent Design.

See also

Further Reading

  • Michael J. Behe: Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Free Press 1996. Argues that several exquisite biochemical mechanisms could not have arisen by a sequence of random mutations and selection.
  • Ernst Mayr: One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, Harvard University Press 1993. Explanation of the evidence behind the mainstream evolutionary theory.
  • Kenneth R. Miller: Finding Darwin's God, HarperCollins 1999. A cell biologist (and devout Christian) pokes holes in intelligent design theory.
  • Robert T. Pennock: Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism, MIT Press 1999. A philosopher pokes holes in intelligent design theory.
  • William A. Dembski: Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, InterVarsity Press 1999. ISBN 0830815813
  • Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics, ed. Robert T. Pennock, MIT Press 2002. A comprehensive anthology.

External links



References

Retrieved from "http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Intelligent_design"