Intelligent Design. More of the Same?
One of the most common questions I or any other proponent of Intelligent Design (ID) get is, “What is Intelligent Design?” It’s a great question, and one that the leaders in the ID community have neglected to adequately answer for the public. Is it a philosophy? Is it religious? What does it say about God? Who is the designer? All of these questions are legitimate, and if the ID community had done a better job of making the public aware of what ID was, they would rarely have to be asked.
Let me start by addressing what Intelligent Design ISN’T.
- ID is NOT creationism! In fact, ID directly challenges the most common interpretation of the Genesis creation account.
- ID accepts evolutionary theory (change over time, natural selection), both its abilities and its limitations.
- ID says nothing concerning the age of the Universe/Earth (come on, it’s a biological science, not a geological/cosmological one), and it certainly doesn’t claim that the earth is 6-10 thousand years old.
- ID doesn’t claim that any god is the designer. In fact, ID is a theory based on the design, the necessity of the existence of one or more designers, but never does it venture into identifying the designer. You could say it’s more like studying the writings of an unknown author.
Now, let’s get into the definition of Intelligent Design:
“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” Discovery Institute
*The Discovery Institute is the leading ID Think Tank involved in ID. The page I linked to above is a great resource for quick answers to questions about Intelligent Design.
Notice that the primary definition of ID does not say that ALL features of the Universe are the result of an intelligence, just certain ones. So, what does it mean when we say that some features of the Universe are best explained by and intelligent cause, rather then a purely undirected cause?
Undirected processes such as wind, erosion, gravity, chemistry, heat, etc. can do some pretty cool stuff. Wind can create a tornado. Gravity can hold the moon in orbit. Erosion can create the Grand Canyon. Chemistry is responsible for the bonds that keep water molecules together.
Directed processes, design, can do some pretty cool stuff too. Intelligence built the pyramids. Intelligence can create plastics. Intelligence can program a robot or computer. Intelligence can understand and manipulate mathematics. Intelligence can even produce more intelligence.
The fact is, the complexity and functionality of biological systems is unmatched by anything in the universe. The question is, where did such complexity and functionality come from? Are biological systems indicative of directed or undirected processes as the “creator”?
Before Charles Darwin’s writings, the answer seemed clear. Pure logic told us that life was a grand design whose purpose was to serve the creator. Since that time, however, new processes have been discovered. One such process is Natural Selection. A brilliant and coherent theory, it answered the questions that science had been unable to answer for thousands of years, and called into question our previous ideas pertaining to the origins of life.
Today, Darwinian evolution has become an assumption, rarely questioned, if at all, by the scientific community.
However, in the last 20 years, Darwinism has come under scrutiny by proponents of Intelligent Design, and for good reason. While we were caught up in the excitement of the discovery of a new natural process, we ignored inconsistencies in hopes for an answer “some day”. Well, some day is here, and many questions still remain.
I said earlier that Intelligent Design accepts natural selection, both its abilities and limitations. The fact is, natural selection is not as powerful as we would like to believe.
Yes, the theory of Intelligent Design is analogous. It must be. The complexity of life, while natural, is similar and even exceeds the complexity of our own (human) designs.
So, what is Intelligent Design? It is the theory that life, both in its conception, and even in its evolution, has been the result of intelligence, of design.
Obviously, this isn’t meant to be a dissertation. This post does not serve the purpose of explaining the details of ID. For that, I recommend 2 videos:
1. Ken Miller on Intelligent Design – This is a youtube video of Ken Miller, an evolutionary biologist, explaining evolution, and attempting to debunk Intelligent Design. I disagree with his position, but he’s a really good guy with a likable personality. He’s also a really good speaker and explains things very nicely. I highly recommend it.
2. Talk of the Times – This is a video or audio discussion between Dr. Peter Ward and Dr. Stephen Meyer. Dr. Ward is a paleontologist at the University of Washington. Dr. Meyer is the director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, the largest Intelligent Design think tank in America. I really recommend watching/listening to this talk for a good “debate” on the issue.
Well, I hope that shed some light on Intelligent Design. If there are any questions, feel free to email me. I would be happy to talk about it.
Nathan
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
[...] For instance, when Nathan was thinking about blogging on Intelligent Design and Evolution, which he already has done, he could go over to the AdWords Keyword Tool and plug in “intelligent design” and see what pops up. [...]
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
I’m glad you found that Miller video, I had meant to link it to you a while ago but IIRC I never got around to it. You know me, so you know I agree with most of his points, but I do think he could have addressed Irreducible Complexity more aptly (and indeed, he has done so in several articles); he goes after Behe’s example IC systems and says they aren’t really IC because he can knock certain pieces off them and they still work. Well yes, but what you are left with after knocking those bits off is STILL IC. It’s far more effective in my opinion to show how IC can in principle evolve, rather than to claim no IC systems exist, because even if none of Behe’s examples were truly IC, we might well eventually find some that were; Herman Muller claimed in 1918, well before the ‘Black Box’ of the cell’s internal structure was unveiled or Behe coined ‘Irreducible Complexity’, that evolution predicts IC.
It’s a great video, and of course I found it on digg a good while ago. I really like Miller. I don’t feel like he is head over heels in love with evolution. I truly believe that if he saw convincing evidence, he would gladly convert.
The IC thing is still up in the air. We can discuss this more in email (whenever I get around to replying to you), but the different theoretical pathways to an IC system are heavily dependent on a very large good to bad mutation ratio from start to finish. That is, there simply isn’t enough time for natural selection to both keep good mutations and remove the bad (we’ll discuss it more in depth in email), given that small mutations work for tremendous change.
Anyway, I’ll catch up with you later.
Ok, one question though.
“ID is NOT creationism! In fact, ID directly challenges the most common interpretation of the Genesis creation account.”
I’ll agree that ID isn’t Creationism, but how does it specifically challenge any part of Genesis?
It’s best said like this: It challenges the common interpretation of Genesis. That is, 6000 years ago, everything created at the same time, no evolution.
ID accepts best earth age estimations, admits evolution is a real and powerful phenomena, and does not believe there is any scientific reason to conclude that everything was designed at the same time.
very interesting article. thanks for it.
Ah, my understanding was that ID didn’t have anything specific to say about any of those things. Isn’t Meyer a YEC?
ID, like most actual sciences, doesn’t attempt to make judgements on other scientific theories, unless it is relevant, I admit. However, ID as a theory accepts as a premise the other forms of natural history, such as natural selection, geologic time, etc. Also, because of its statemenst concerning the Cambrian explosion, one could conclude that ID does not, in any way, hold to a “all creatures created at once” position, and their use of the CE as an argument for design would, in a manner of speaking, directly deny the notion.
no, no, no, Meyer is NOT a YEC. He states as much in the Meyer v Ward video.
Nathan
“Today, Darwinian evolution has become an assumption, rarely questioned, if at all, by the scientific community.”
Ummm, no. Scientists believe evolution because of the massive amount of werful enough to drive speciation and evolutionary change.
“Pure logic told us that life was a grand design whose purpose was to serve the creator.”
Well, not really. Greek philosophers of the antiquity hypothesized that we developed from fish. Before Darwin’s time, some academics (I can’t recall the names despite the best of my efforts) thought that design wasn’t the only answer, but they couldn’t imagine any alternatives.
Intelligent design isn’t science. It’s pseudo-science. There is absolutely 0 evidence to support its claims, and sufficient evidence to refute its claims (these are well covered in Sam Harris’ ‘Letter to a Christian Nation’). Why would an intelligent designer cause human embryos to grow full body fur (like apes) only to discard it afterwards? Why would he/she/it create animals with blind eyes? There are umpteen examples, but I don’t remember the rest. All the evidence points towards evolution, none points towards intelligent design.
By the way, who designed the designer? Don’t write this off as a dead horse, it is a nearly fatal argument to even a deist god. If you’re thinking “you fool, God is a transcendent eternal being,” then why not the Universe, and its simple, singular origin? Richard Dawkins calls this “the Ultimate Boeing 747 argument.” You can read about it is his magnificient new book ‘The God Delusion’ (it will not leave you unchanged, I promise!).
The biological version of ID is already well refuted (it was refuted by the theory of Darwinian evolution and zoological evidence [blind eyes and embryotic fur] before it even existed), so I presented the 747 argument (before I had read the 747 argument; these were my own thoughts) in my own words, relating to cosmological ID:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7097
I didn’t say that it was an unwarranted assumption, just that it was, in fact, an assumption, rarely questioned.
“Well, not really. Greek philosophers of the antiquity hypothesized..”
An incomplete hypothesis by a small amount of philosophers hardly challenges my point.
“By the way, who designed the designer?”
At what point does not knowing who “designed” Robert Frost, say anything whatsoever about his authorship of “Dedication”? The two are simply unrelated, scientifically speaking. It is an interesting question, but not at all relevant to the veracity of ID.
“The biological version of ID is already well refuted”
Notice that, in my article, I never attempted to assert, “the biological version of ID is already well substantiated”.
Your proclamation of such, as if saying it made it true, is illustrative of the distinction between you and me.
Error from last comment, should be:
‘Scientists believe evolution because of the massive amount of mutually supportive evidence that make it proven fact. Natural selection has been well demonstrated to be powerful enough to drive speciation and evolutionary change
————–
“I didn’t say that it was an unwarranted assumption, just that it was, in fact, an assumption, rarely questioned.”
You could say that particle theory is also rarely question. The point has little relevance.
“It is an interesting question, but not at all relevant to the veracity of ID.”
That, to be frank, is intellectual laziness. The theory of evolution is complete because it not only states that creatures evolve, it explains the “force” that “drives” evolution: the descension of genetic codes through mutation and natural selection in tandem.
ID doesn’t explain at all the force that “intelligently designed” life or how it did so. So, as it stands, it is an incomplete and superfluous theory.
Cheers.
“ID doesn’t explain at all the force that “intelligently designed” life or how it did so.”
I’m not certain it has to, so long as the evidence conclusively points to intelligence in life’s origin. However, I don’t believe that any such evidence exists. IDists assert that specified complexity correlates with the likelihood that a system was designed, but I don’t believe that assertion is, or even can be, supported by any evidence. I would argue that the only way we could demonstrate an intelligent origin of life is by looking for signs of *artificiality*, rather than complexity. Nate, recall that we debated about whether SETI was a valid analogy for ID investigation. You said that they must search for CSI in signals, just as IDists to in living systems. However, upon further research, it turned out they use artificiality as an indicator of design, not complexity. I say IDists must do the same if they hope to demonstrate their case.
“massive amount of mutually supportive evidence that make it proven fact.”
stay tuned, I may have an article on the way that may challenge that assertion.
“You could say that particle theory is also rarely question. The point has little relevance.”
You’re welcome to think that. However, I considered the statement highly relevant to the topic. I’m sorry if you disagree. If I were writing on a challenge to particle theory, your statement would be quite relevant, now, wouldn’t it?
“The theory of evolution is complete because it not only states that creatures evolve, it explains the “force” that “drives” evolution”
Indeed, the evolutionary synthesis is quite a broad brush. ID, however, is not. While the detection of design and the identity of the designer are not mutually exclusive, they are not necessarily reliant on each other for veracity. Remember that. There is no design synthesis. Give us 150 years and billions in research grants, then we’ll talk.
Until then, your unreasonable call for one theory to answer the questions of another are simply a waste of time.
“ID doesn’t explain at all the force that “intelligently designed” life or how it did so. So, as it stands, it is an incomplete and superfluous theory.”
And the evolutionary synthesis doesn’t explain self-organization. But as I’m sure you already know, it doesn’t have to, since they are 2 separate scientific concentrations that seek to answer 2 different questions. Be consistent!
“I’m not certain it has to, so long as the evidence conclusively points to intelligence in life’s origin.”
Exactly! The argument is, and will continue to be, whether such evidence exists.
“However, upon further research, it turned out they use artificiality as an indicator of design, not complexity.”
Essentially, yes. Artificiality, I assume, means “not natural in origin”. That, however, isn’t quantifiable. You have to measure something in order to define the artificiality of something. I believe that is the goal of theories involving CSI in biology.
Nathan
“Essentially, yes. Artificiality, I assume, means “not natural in origin”. That, however, isn’t quantifiable. You have to measure something in order to define the artificiality of something. I believe that is the goal of theories involving CSI in biology.”
I’ll admit I have no idea about how to quantify ‘articiality’. We obviously can quantify CSI; the question is whether CSI really has so strong a correlation with design as you suppose. So we can quantify CSI, but maybe not link it to design, whereas we can link artificiality to design (I’m not going to say we can link it to ‘intelligent’ design because depending on your definition, non-intelligent designs like termite castles could be considered artificial) but maybe not quantify it. It’s a tricky subject, and that’s why I think IDists are far too quick in asserting that CSI = design.
“the question is whether CSI really has so strong a correlation with design as you suppose.”
I believe that it has been sufficiently demonstrated. Aside from the object of our current scrutiny — biology, design is the only known process by which CSI originates. Is that a correct statement?
Yes. But again, there are only two known classes of high-CSI ‘artifacts’; human designs, and life. It does not follow from the one being designed that the other is as well.
True, but CSI has a much stronger correlation with design than it does with anything else, no?
I like your termite illustration though, although perhaps honey-bees would be a better example. Could it be said that a honey-comb possessed high-CSI? If so, would that not add another example of non-human intelligence (although admittedly not HIGH intelligence) producing CSI (although admittedly not HIGH amounts of CSI)? It would certainly be a good starting point, and it would also draw a line of correlation between the amount of intelligence and the amount of CSI (greater intelligence, greater CSI: less intelligence, less CSI).
Interesting. I’ll have to think about that.
“If so, would that not add another example of non-human intelligence?”
Couldn’t one just as easily say that honeycombs were the result of natural processes? That’s why I said termite castles could be considered to possess artificiality by *some* definitions.
“Couldn’t one just as easily say that honeycombs were the result of natural processes?”
What natural processes? Honeybees are intelligent, especially as a group. By natural processes, I assume that to mean by non-directed processes like wind, heat, erosion, etc.
>ID is NOT creationism!
A Federal judge says otherwise… as a matter of law, ID is creationism.
“The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism” (page 31)
“The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.” (page 43)
“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.” (page 64)
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf