Who is the 'Intelligent Designer'?
(Warning relating to this post. Chowbay's Food and Article Center advises to maintain proper etiquette while attending dinner parties: one should, "try
to avoid heavy subjects such as politics and religion.". I'm
going to stay out of the politics (as much as is possible) but will
touch on religion and science. So please forgive my manners... ;-)
This week George W. Bush spoke on the
subject 'Intelligent Design' and his personal view as to whether it
should be taught at science classes, alongside evolution.
According to the Washington Post:
"President Bush invigorated
proponents of teaching alternatives to evolution in public schools with
remarks saying that schoolchildren should be taught about "intelligent
design," a view of creation that challenges established scientific
thinking and promotes the idea that an unseen force is behind the
development of humanity.Although he said that curriculum
decisions should be made by school districts rather than the federal
government, Bush told Texas newspaper reporters in a group interview at
the White House on Monday that he believes that intelligent design
should be taught alongside evolution as competing theories."
The Constitution guarantees the
religious freedom of all Americans by protecting the individual right
to worship and ensuring separation between church and state. Courts
repeatedly have held that the public school classroom must be
religiously neutral and that schools must not advocate religious views.
In 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism in the public schools is unconstitutional.
So creationism is out. And a new meme is being pushed. Intelligent Design.
What is 'Intelligent Design'?
I hadn't heard of this newly evolved
term, 'Intelligent Design' before yesterday, so I searched around to
find a little about 'Intelligent Design'. According to this Washington Post article, Phillip Johnson, a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Culture and Science,
has lead an Intelligent Design movement where at at least 19 states are
now considering challenges to the teaching of Darwin's theory of
evolution.
So what is Intelligent Design? And
who is the Intelligent Designer? Well, given the Supreme Court's
decision, it cannot be God because that would amount to
creationism. And since teaching creationism at public schools in
the US is unconstitutional, the creationists need a new brand of
creationism, one without a god explicitly mentioned as a cause.
In my research I came across the following definition in a paper 'Intelligent Design, A Scientific Alternative to Evolution' [PDF] by William S. Harris and John H. Calvert of the Intelligent Design Network published in the Autumn 2003 edition of The National Catholic Weekly.
"The theory of intelligent design has been described by ID theorist Professor William Dembski of Baylor University as follows:
Intelligent design begins with the
observation that intelligent causes can do things that undirected
natural causes cannot. Undirected natural causes can"
Another definition is provided by Dr Samuel Blumenfeld, in yesterday's article 'Evolution vs Intelligent Design' at the World Daily, also quoting William A. Dembski's book. "Intelligent Design":
"The first false idea in the theory [of evolution] is
that non-organic matter can transform itself into organic matter.
Pasteur proved that this was impossible. Second, the enormous
complexity of organic matter precludes accidental creation. There had
to be a designer. There is now a whole scientific school devoted to the
Design Theory. William A. Dembski's book, "Intelligent Design,"
published in 1999, is the pioneering work that bridges science with
theology. Dembski writes:Intelligent design is three things: a
scientific research program that investigates the effects of
intelligent causes; an intellectual movement that challenges Darwinism
and its naturalistic legacy; and a way of understanding divine action
...It was Darwin's expulsion of design
from biology that made possible the triumph of naturalism in Western
culture. So, too, it will be intelligent design's restatement of design
within biology that will be the undoing of naturalism in Western
culture."
Blumenfeld concludes his article by
underscoring the divine nature of the theory and the inability of
'evolutionists' to accept the Intelligent Design theory due to their
rejection of a god:
"But since intelligent design infers
the existence of a designer – God – it is likely that evolutionists
will resist any change in their views, since the acknowledgment of the
existence of God is too nightmarish for them to contemplate."
Here Blumenfeld states God is the
designer through inference, probably at the dismay of the hardcore
Intelligent Design supporters - as it would be unconstitutional to have this
version of Intelligent Design be taught at public schools. (By
the way, his last statement really seems out of sync with reality
regardless of who might be right or wrong about whether there is an
'intelligent designer' or not. The fact is that there are many
evolutionary scientists who are religious and believe in the
existence of a god. In general, religious scientists assume that
God created the universe and its physical laws, and that the
evolutionary process is a by-product of these laws. In fact,
evolution says nothing about how the physical laws came to be.)
According to William S. Harris and John H. Calvert of the Intelligent Design Network,
you cannot be believer in 'god as a creator' and believe in
evolution. The following is a quote from the same by Harris and
Calvert article [PDF]:
“Where do we come from? Theism holds
that humanity was designed for a purpose, while science claims that
design and the purposes it serves are an illusion. A recent example of
the depth of the confusion is a resolution adopted by the Presbyterian
Church USA (PCUSA) in which “evolution” is held to be consistent with a
“God as Creator.” The problem is that evolution is not defined in the
resolution. If by evolution, the PCUSA means “change over time,” then
the statement may be accurate, but if evolution means “unguided, blind,
unintended change,” then the statement is logically inconsistent.”
The central disagreement Intelligent
Design theory has with the theory of evolutionary process (unguided,
blind, unintended change) appears to be that 'evolution' cannot explain
the complexity of life we observe nor the presence of conscious,
intelligent and thinking beings.
The 'design detection fiter'
According to Harris and Calevert, in his book 'The Design Inference', William Dembksi
introduces a 'methodology', that proposes there can only be three
explanatory causes for any event, 'chance, 'necessity' (natural law),
and 'design', and that by applying what he calls a 'design detection
filter', which involves asking 3 questions about an event you can
determine its cause. In the Harris and Calvert article [PDF],
they apply the 'design detection filter' to the DNA molecule. They
conclude a) that the DNA sequence contain information has purpose, that
b) DNA sequences are not determined by physical laws and that c) DNA in
a single cell cannot have been assembled by chance, and therefore
'designed':
"We are driven by the data and the
facts to the most logical conclusion: the message carried by the DNA in
the first functional cell has all the hallmarks of having been derived
from an intelligent source."
I'm not going into their rationalization
behind each of their answers, but I will take a quick look the 'data'
it uses relating to their answer to the third question 'What is the
probability that DNA assembled by chance in the first cell?' (the paper
doesn't actually describe what it means by 'the first cell'):
"It is postulated that the first cell
would need at least three hundred genes to become a functioning
organism capable of replication. The statistical probability of
assembling a single gene coding for one hundred amino acids by chance
alone to be something in the order of 1x10-190 has been calculated. So our answer is No, the likelihood that a functional DNA chain appeared by chance is essentially zero."
Indeed, the answer 'no' to this question
of chance may be accurate if the underlying assumption the answer is
based upon is accurate - that all the 100 amino acids were required to
encode each of the three hundred genes came together spontaneously, in
the right order and at the same moment in order to create the first
cell. I agree, that this would not just be improbable, but a
spectacular miracle by any measure. But this assumption and the
conclusion this answer arrives at ignores all current theory relating
to the processes involved prior to the 'first cell's' creation
(whatever Harris and Calvert mean by 'first cell'). This is like
saying that the the probability of the sun's diameter being 12,740km
happened by chance is zero and therefore must have been intelligently
designed (I'd love to go further into this argument but I have a
weekend to enjoy!).
So who is the 'Intelligent Designer'?
I caught part of an interview on TV yesterday (I later found the transcript at PBS.org), where Jeffrey Brown asks Michael Behe, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC) if God is the Intelligent Designer:
"JEFFREY BROWN: Okay. Professor Behe,
is this a way to bring God into the classroom and, I guess the direct
question is: Is the designer, the intelligent designer, is that god?MICHAEL BEHE: Well, first of all, to
answer your first question, no, this is not an attempt to bring God
into the classroom. This is an attempt to account for the data that
science has accumulated in the past five decades. Nobody expected the
cell to be this complex. Nobody expected molecular machinery to
under-gird life. No Darwinian theory predicted this. No Darwinian
theory presently accounts for it. We are just trying to explain how
such astonishing machinery and complexity has come to be."
The question Brown poses is of course
the first question one might ask upon first hearing of Intelligent
Design. Is God the Intelligent Designer? Beher answers
'no'. What I don't understand is why other proponents of this
theory - fellows of the CSC - occasionally answer with an emphatic 'yes'. Ed Brayton has compiled a number of quotes from William Dembski, Nancy Pearcy and Phllip Johnson that seem to betray the the identity of the Intelligent Designer...maybe they just can't help themselves?:
"Intelligent design readily embraces
the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design
is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of
information theory." William Dembski, (Touchstone Magazine, July/August 1999)"If the broader impact of Darwinism
was to remove Christianity from the sphere of objective truth, then the
broader significance of the Intelligent Design movement will be to
bring it back. By providing evidence of God's work in nature, it
restores Christianity to the status of a genuine knowledge claim,
giving us the means to reclaim a place at the table of public debate.
Christians will then be in a position to challenge the fact/value
dichotomy that has marginalized religion and morality by reducing them
to irrational, subjective experience." Nancy Pearcy, (Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity, 2004)
The following is quote from Phillip Johnson, the leader of the Intelligent Design movement, couldn't be any clearer:
"Our strategy has been to change the
subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which
really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the
schools." Philip Johnson, American Family Radio, January 10, 2003)
As I see it, the 'Intelligent Design' theory should not be taught at the science classroom. The Supreme Court is clear on this matter.
If it is to be taught at all in public schools, it should be taught in
the classes relating to the study of religion and theology.
-
Update, 7 August: I found a blog, Evolution News run by the Discovery Institute (even mentions Technorati!)...no comments allowed though..:: Seth Godin has something to say on the subject...As does Casual Fridays...
Also worth checking out this NPR show, a debate on the issue of Intelligent Design. Skeptico (one of my favourite blogs) has written quite a bit on the subject.
National Center for Science Education view of Intelligent Design shares its view. Tom Vanderbilt of the Design Observer has an interesting perspective on this issue.
Update: August 10: Skeptico: "Intelligent Design disingenuously misrepresented"
Update: August 19: Seems the Evolution News blog,
the pro ID blog run by the Discovery Institue, have deleted the
trackbacks from my post to theirs. Given their 'We want freee
speech' mantra, this seems at odds with what they are trying to
achieve: a conversation. BTW, they seems to be getting lots of
traffic - I received about a 3,000 referring hits to this post from
their trackbacks in about a week.
Comments
Anonymous
August 06, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 06, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 06, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 06, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 06, 2005
Modern scientific research points strongly to the weakness of Darwinian or what has come to be known as "neo-Darwinian" evolutionary theory as a suitable explanation for not only the enormous complexity of modern organisms but also their behavior. Bacteria have been shown to alter their own DNA under direct stress and have reliably altered it in ways which coincide with their direct survival. This would be difficult to explain without the assumption of specific design on their part, which technically would be genetic mutation by design. So, considering the evidence, the concept of an intelligent designer (despite what connotations that wording may carry) is certainly no less reliable a theory as the current evolution being taught as gospel in schools today. The question remains: is it more correct to teach the young the most accurate interpretation of reality or the most commonly believed regardless of merit? Also, since when has atheism been proven? How did it somehow become synonomous with scientific fact?Anonymous
August 06, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 06, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 06, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 06, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 07, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 07, 2005
I'd prefer not to teach Intelligent Design, but if it must be taught (by force of law, not of reason), then teach it as a "theory" on an equal footing with the "theory" of evolution.
1. Is it consistent with the evidence?
1.a. Does it remain consistent with the evidence, or must it be amended as new evidence is discovered?
2. It is parsimonious? Are there simpler theories that explain the same phenomena?
3. Is it testable? Does it make predictions that can be tested? Has it done so in the past? Have its predictions been correct.
If we must discuss Intelligent design, let's subject it to the same strict standards as any other theory.
(By the way, if the ID proponents succeed in this, I have an proposal for curricula on Intelligent Thermodynamics, just in case Carnot was wrong. No point in denying Perpetual Motion just because we haven't seen it yet.)Anonymous
August 07, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 07, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 07, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 07, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 07, 2005
Adam,
There are actually very few references I've found via MSN or Google search relating to the documents you point out (please, link!).
What I have found is that without exception, each of the writings you to point to are quoted in the forums of http://www.arn.org/ website, run by an organization who's directors, staff and friends of the ARN (http://www.arn.org/infopage/info.htm) or the ISCID (http://www.iscid.org/fellows.php) include fellows of the Discovery Institute CSC (http://www.crsc.org/fellows.php - Paul Nelson, Mike Behe, David Berlinski, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and of course, Phillip Johnson himself. The Discovery Institute is the primary financier of the Intelligent Design movement.
In fact, there are very few references I've found actually discussing any of the works you point out. The only exception seems to Shapiro's work (http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/publications.html).
I have found these though:
This (ISCID) forum thread actually uses many of the references you quote, all in context of Intelligent Design (ID). http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000032.html.
As does this ARN forum thread, also in the context of ID: http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/13/t/002086/p/2.htmlAnonymous
August 07, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 07, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 07, 2005
Adam: Where does this Evolution = Atheism idea come from? Just because we arrived here out of genetic mutations driven by chance (chance that was heavily constrained by the nature of the genetic machinery), doesn't mean we can't shape our lives to have meaning. It is not incomprehensible to me (albeit as a nonbeliever) to feel that although I'm here by chance, that perhaps some Providence guided this chance. It doesn't have to be "proven" by some sort of "design filter"... it can be accepted on faith.Anonymous
August 07, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 07, 2005
nksingh,
I sympathize with your feelings, and this is the point I am making. Faith has become a dirty word as of late, and this trend is unhealthy at best. Soon it will be eradicated and its deletion justified by inconclusive evidence.Anonymous
August 07, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 07, 2005
How would your position change if , after more research, it turns out macro-Evolution (the blind-chance variation taught in schools) is false and Intelligent Design is true?
Would you still expect that schools continue to teach evolution as fact?Anonymous
August 07, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 07, 2005
Damien, I'm afraid that your thinking suffers from a significant lack of thoroughness and I wonder if you have understood much of what I have written. While Galileo and his trials had there place in history, they are certainly no substitute for a comprehensive understanding of the forces which meld the world. It appears some extensive research on your end may benefit your insights tremendously and afford you a more accurate worldview for which to rest your opinions on.Anonymous
August 07, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 07, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 07, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 07, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 07, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 08, 2005
I tend to picture your relationship more as a hunk of snot fried under the cushions of an enormous couch.Anonymous
August 08, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 08, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 08, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 08, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 08, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 08, 2005
Sorry Adam, I also meant to include this quote by you, "To distill the issue, and to put us all inside the vacuum we all crave, recent evidence points away from genetic mutations occurring on a purely random basis and slightly more toward an element of intention behind the mutation," that also speaks to your presupposition that there is purpose behind the universe. On what basis do you make that assumption?Anonymous
August 08, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 08, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 08, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 09, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 09, 2005
thanks to all for the civil contributions! Let's keep it that way!
GCT, great questions (in you most of 6:36am). I'd love to hear some answers to those specific questions.Anonymous
August 09, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 09, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 09, 2005
Sorry Mr. Barnett, I was trying to guess your name from the post name you used.Anonymous
August 09, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 09, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 09, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 09, 2005
I may be wrong, but I don't believe Darwin's theory includes "strategic" mutation as a viable evolutionary mechanism. This may be where the difference lies.Anonymous
August 09, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 09, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 09, 2005
Mr. Barnett, you wrote, "I agree with your point that gravity is not a fact in the scientific use of the word. Scientific theories are not 'facts', but scientific theories are made up of facts." That is pretty much what I was trying to say, but you have said it much better than I. Thank you.Anonymous
August 10, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 10, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 10, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 10, 2005
GCT, please call me Alex! appreciate your comments, thanks!Anonymous
August 11, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 11, 2005
Before one can render a judgement on whether something religious is being in taught in school one must first know exactly what it is that is being taught.
Intelligent design means different things to different people. As far as I'm concerned the intelligence can be anything from naturally occurring quantum computers to little green men from Mars to Gods like YHWH and Zeus.
Unless what is being taught specifically alleges the intelligence is a deity it doesn't rise to the level of being a violation of church/state separation.
Until there is a specific bit of ID that is actually being taught there is nothing to argue about in regard to separation issues. The Supreme Court has ruled out creation science based on biblical literalism being taught in public schools. There is no ID being taught in public schools based on biblical literalism so what we have right now is vast leftwing conspiracy to paint ID in public school as a 1st amendment establishment violation before we even know what it is that's being taught! Talk about big fat red herrings!Anonymous
August 11, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 11, 2005
David - the ID movement is a front for Christian creationists. You wont find any jewish, hindu, budhhist, or muslims amongst the ranks of ID proponents, and the reason for that is that it is designed to push Christian doctrine on children who less capable of deciding for themselves than adults.
Apart from their ideas, that they want to push this stuff on kids is incredibly vile of them. Let them start with adults and see if they can manage a decent amount of cross-religion support for, say, a few decades.Anonymous
August 12, 2005
Oh, BTW everyone, the Left-wing Conspiracy Meeting was moved to tomorrow night at 8.Anonymous
August 15, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 17, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 17, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 18, 2005
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 18, 2005
It seems as though the DI has deleted your trackbacks to their blog. Typical.Anonymous
August 19, 2005
Thanks GCT - have noticed. Strange isn't it?
Here we are having a conversation that they feel is not relevtant to their topic - ?Anonymous
September 13, 2005
Patrick wonders where his belief leaves him. The answer is simple: he's a Deist, like Thomas Jefferson.Anonymous
December 01, 2005
Is the <a href="http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com/2005/11/is-designer-designed.html">designer the designed</a>?Anonymous
February 20, 2006
I think no designed could design.Anonymous
February 25, 2006
Perhaps this can answer your question.Anonymous
February 26, 2006
One recent comment at this post of mine caught my eye, left by the 'Designer'...Anonymous
August 12, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 12, 2008
PingBack from http://biblesairportsblog.info/alex-barnetts-blog-who-is-the-intelligent-designer/Anonymous
May 30, 2008
(Warning relating to this post. Chowbay's Food and Article Center advises to maintain proper etiquette while attending dinner parties: one should, " try to avoid heavy subjects such as politics and religion.". I'm going to stay out of the politicsAnonymous
June 05, 2008
(Warning relating to this post. Chowbay's Food and Article Center advises to maintain proper etiquette while attending dinner parties: one should, " try to avoid heavy subjects such as politics and religion.". I'm going to stay out of the politicsAnonymous
May 26, 2009
PingBack from http://backyardshed.info/story.php?title=alex-barnett-s-blog-who-is-the-intelligent-designerAnonymous
May 29, 2009
PingBack from http://paidsurveyshub.info/story.php?title=alex-barnett-s-blog-who-is-the-intelligent-designerAnonymous
May 31, 2009
PingBack from http://woodtvstand.info/story.php?id=2066Anonymous
May 31, 2009
PingBack from http://portablegreenhousesite.info/story.php?id=10591Anonymous
June 02, 2009
PingBack from http://uniformstores.info/story.php?id=42097Anonymous
June 08, 2009
PingBack from http://menopausereliefsite.info/story.php?id=249Anonymous
June 09, 2009
PingBack from http://greenteafatburner.info/story.php?id=1012Anonymous
June 09, 2009
PingBack from http://insomniacuresite.info/story.php?id=748Anonymous
June 09, 2009
PingBack from http://cellulitecreamsite.info/story.php?id=939Anonymous
June 09, 2009
PingBack from http://quickdietsite.info/story.php?id=940Anonymous
June 12, 2009
PingBack from http://toenailfungusite.info/story.php?id=162Anonymous
June 18, 2009
PingBack from http://outdoordecoration.info/story.php?id=1840Anonymous
June 18, 2009
PingBack from http://fancyporchswing.info/story.php?id=81Anonymous
June 18, 2009
PingBack from http://adirondackchairshub.info/story.php?id=1762