Detecting Design

*Random or designed? How does one tell?

Quick Intro to Intelligent Design from a Sympathetic and Christian Perspective

„ What is ID? „ definitions „ Is design detectable? „ the explanatory filter „ The ID argument „ bacterial flagellum on E. coli „ implications „ objections „ Conclusions/Discussion

1 “….teleology was a mistress that no biologist could live without, yet he would be ashamed to be seen in the street with her.” -A.C. Burton

“….scientific explanations are never complete….they always depend on philosophical presuppositions [which may] have to find their justification in the realm of religious belief” -Del Ratzsch

“Anyone with only a week to live will not find it in his interest to believe that all this is just a matter of chance.” -Blaise Pascal

“Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.” -Revelation 4:11

Definitions, cont’d

„ species: a separate reproductive community; i.e. creatures that can mate with each other are members of the same species „ micro-evolution: adaptation within a species that gives the adapted creature an advantage with respect to survival and/or reproduction (e.g. finch the dog is the beaks, bacterial antibiotic resistance) most diverse species on earth, „ macro-evolution: the theory that all living and has been organisms came to be what they are by a purely subject to much selective breeding; random, purposeless process, first via (a) pre- there are about 400 modern dog biological processes to get a primitive life form, and breeds then (b) mutation and natural selection on the organism, and nothing more (no guiding intelligence, conscious purpose, personal creator or other non-naturalistic mechanism)

2 Macro-evolution’s “Descent with Modification”

Matter and energy Subatomic particles: Atoms Molecules Quarks, gluons, etc Pre-biological evolution RNA/DNA/proteins w/ ability to reproduce and process Eubacteria Archaebacteria energy Prokaryotes (no cell nucleus)=the simplest living organism Single-celled organisms Eukaryotes (nucleus enclosed by its own membrane)

Ancestral fish Multicellular Plants: Coelacanth, etc Mosses, ferns, seed plants, flowers, etc

Amphibians Worms Sponges Modern fish

Reptiles Arthropods: Mollusks Insects, crustaceans, etc Lizards, dinosaurs, etc Archaepteryx Invertebrates (145X106 yrs ago) Mammals Birds Human, whale, bat Penguins, hummingbird, ostrich, etc Vertebrates

(arrows represent “descent”)

Definitions, cont’d

„ naturalism or “metaphysical naturalism”: the doctrine that nature (the fundamental particles that make up what we call matter and energy, together with the laws that govern how those particles behave) is all there is, and that nature is the only thing that is ultimately real or meaningful. All else, including God, is an illusion. „ natural selection: the “survival of the fittest” or “the differential survival of mutant forms [which possess an advantage with respect to survival and/or reproduction]”

3 What is Science? „ (No universally-accepted, formal definition)

„ A process that attempts to „ be empirical (involving experiments and observation) „ be rational „ be objective and public, self-checking „ make testable predictions „ seek to understand the universe or parts thereof, leading to formation of theories (coherent networks of propositions and presuppositions), ultimately providing a systematic, rigorous account „ find and describe regularities or “law-like” behavior „ follow the evidence wherever it leads „ has no good grounds for rejecting/barring evidences of design „ {many do reject design as inconsistent with science because, they claim, „ it results in “scientific laziness” „ methodological naturalism or “provisional atheism” is essential to science (Ratzsch, p. 122)}

„ Science also „ is subjective (Thomas Kuhn’s work made this clear): personal presuppositions, biases, systems of interpretation, and religion play a role in determining what the “facts” are „ not always “cool, reasoned, wholly dispassionate” „ nothing is religiously neutral, but some subjects more neutral than others „ the Pythagorean theorem „ human origins or behavior

„ is inductive, tentative „ assumes uniformity of nature a priori „ employs “bridge principles” between observed patterns and theoretical entities (e.g. quarks and gluons) „ is embedded in a world-view, a presuppositional framework (e.g. Nova special on Newton)

Definitions, cont’d

ALL parts of the system need to be present for the mousetrap to function; such systems are not put together gradually, step-by-step.

„ irreducible complexity: A system performing a given function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well- matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system’s basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core. (Wm. Dembski)

4 What is “Intelligent Design"?

„ A movement dedicated to showing that 1) macro-evolution is not so much a theory based on lots of evidence as it is a philosophical position, an attempt to make science “applied materialistic philosophy” [see Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, for this type of critique], 2) there exist complex organisms that could not have come to be by mutation and natural selection alone, are not explained by physical laws, and so evidence design [M. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box and Wm. Dembski’s No Free Lunch], and 3) intelligent causes are empirically detectable, making ID a “positive scientific research program” [Wm. Dembski’s The Design Inference] „ A diverse movement, a non-monolithic group (the question of “designedness” and the Designer are two different questions)

macro-evolution SELECT AN OBJECT OR sees chance and Defining “Design” EVENT necessity ultimately accounting for ALL Was there any other possible outcome, „ „ design: that which is i.e. was it NOT the result of a known inferred by a process of deterministic process? elimination, using the CONTINGENCY? NECESSITY explanatory filter; what’s NO Is the probability of its existence left once you’ve YES low enough to eliminate chance as eliminated “chance” and the cause? “necessity”; OR an COMPLEXITY? CHANCE NO intentionally produced Is the object or event pre- YES pattern, where a pattern described, suitable, a “target”,NOT is an abstract structure ad hoc? SPECIFICATION? CHANCE that resonates, matches NO or meshes in certain ways with the mind YES (Wm. Dembski’s DESIGN explanatory filter)

5 An explanatory filter example

Radio signal received from outer space that beats out (from the movie all the prime numbers between 2 and 101 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17,….. “Contact”)

Do the laws of physics allow for other sorts of radio signals to be transmitted under these circumstances?

CONTINGENCY? NECESSITY NO

YES Is the prime number sequence long enough?

COMPLEXITY? CHANCE NO

YES Is this sequence of numbers particularly special?

SPECIFICATION? CHANCE NO

YES

DESIGN

SELECT AN OBJECT OR Explanatory filter examples EVENT Was there any other possible outcome, i.e. was it NOT the result of a known deterministic process?

CONTINGENCY? NECESSITY „ We can rationally discriminate NO Is the probability of its existence YES low enough to eliminate chance as between the cause? COMPLEXITY? CHANCE „ intentional copying (design=plagiarism) NO YES Is the object or event pre- vs. chance similarity between articles or described, suitable, NOT ad hoc?

SPECIFICATION? CHANCE numerical tables NO

„ intentional favoritism of candidates YES

(“design”) vs. impartial drawing of DESIGN names „ messages from aliens (“design”) vs. random or regular radio signals [SETI] „ utensils made by ancient peoples (“design”) and objects that have come to be by natural processes (erosion, wind) „ Can we do the same in biology?

6 Darwin’s falsifiability criteria „ The Origin of Species, Chapter 6. “Difficulties of the Theory/ Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication/ Modes of Transition”: „ “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.” „ ∴Organisms which are irreducibly complex are a problem for macro-evolution „ Reductio ad absurdum „ if Macro-evolution (M), then (A) all creatures came to be by gradual, step-wise process of mutation and natural selection, i.e. M⊃A „ Not all organisms come to be by gradual, step-wise process of mutation and natural selection , i.e. ~A „ Hence Macro-evolution is false: M⊃A ; ~A, ∴~M

E. coli bacterial flagellum video (Japan Sci. and Tech. Corporation)

7 Wm. Dembski’s Argument (in No Free Lunch, 2002)

Flagellum on E. coli observed „ Explanatory filter Are there there other types of applied to the flagellum organisms or bacterial propulsion of E. Coli bacteria systems? CONTINGENCY? NECESSITY „ Edited video of BF NO Is the mechanism complex enough (of sufficiently low nanomachine from Japan YES probability) to NOT be explainable by gradual Science and Technology mutation and natural selection? COMPLEXITY? CHANCE Corp: ShortbactFlagellum2.wmv NO

YES „ Dembski’s bacterial Is this part of a living organism?

SPECIFICATION? CHANCE flagellum complexity NO calculation via analogies YES Universal improbability bound = of (a) cake-baking and 1/(max. # events in the universe); DESIGN max. # events in the universe ≈ (age of (b) typographical errors universe/smallest time-scale) X # protons in the universe ≈ 10150 ≈ 2500

Cake-baking analogy

Bact. flagell. Cake comes Dembski's How many comes into into “trips to the existence by existence probability market” and itself by itself estimate “cooking necessary stocking the originating proteins 1 (Miller-Urey) experiments” condition 1 shelf shopping for does it take to necessary localizing proteins correct -234 condition 2 <10 make the ingredients flagellum on E. cooking (like necessary coli (with a assembling proteins assembling -222 condition 3 <10 shopper/cook letters) who acts in a blind, random manner)? prob. of all three necessary conditions met= <10-456

8 Assumptions for probability calculation of “blind” E. coli bacteria origination/localization/assembly of E. coli flagellum

Premises: 1. The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex 2. Fifty proteins are required to make the bacterial flagellum in E. coli; about 30 of these proteins are utilized in its final form 3. Putting a bacterial flagellum together requires 50 distinct proteins to be A. Originated B. Localized (in the right proportions, without interference from other potentially harmful proteins) C. Assembled 4. E Coli’s genome codes for 4289 proteins 5. For any of the 50 required proteins, there are nine others that could do the job (a generous assumption); selection of other proteins will cause interfering cross-reactions 6. For adequate assembly, 10% of the proteins can be put in the wrong spot—analogous to a typographical error 7. Let “protein origination” probability be of order 1. This is generous, as we're granting (a) the existence of carbon and all other atoms required to be build protein molecules, (b) the assembly of amino acids into all the necessary proteins, and (c) the Miller-Urey experiments being representative of conditions on the early earth.

Localizing/collecting ingredients

50 proteins, 5 of each

A blind shopper in the protein supermarket, randomly picking 250 items (5 copies of each of 50 proteins) from shelves with 4289 distinct items. On any given trip, the odds of always picking the right proteins is (500/4289)250=10-234. [Picking them in the right proportions makes the probability even smaller. ] Hence on average it would take at least 10234 trips through the market to select the right ingredients, and avoiding ingredients that cause harmful cross-reactions.

9 Putting the ingredients together: The analogy of typographical errors (50% characters in error)

Putting the ingredients together: The analogy of typographical errors (10% characters in error)

At 10% error level, it’s getting close to meeting its function (if you’ve read it before!)

10 Summary of E. Coli flagellum complexity calculation „ Random, unguided processes cannot reasonably account for the irreducibly complex flagellum on E. coli; chance plus time cannot reasonably account for this level of complexity

Universal Probability Conservative estimate improbability bound, of probability of of flipping a corresponding to localization and particular assembly of E. Coli flipping a specified

p(assembly) sequence of 500 sequence of proteins in blind, p(localization) simultaneous fashion coin flips ten coin flips

10-456 = 2-1520 10-234 10-222 10-150 = 2-500 10-3= 0.001= 2-10

decreasing complexity, increasing probability

Objections to ID: bact. flag. calc.

„ “The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex” „ “Type III Secretion Apparatus uses many of the same proteins as the basal part of the flagellum”

„ but the TTSA has a different function than the bf „ “How can one be sure an organism is IC? How do you parse it in all possible ways?” „ “The bacterial flagellum is not ‘specified’” „ is biological function enough to mean specification? „ detachable as a motor mechanism? „ “A flagellum is specified for the same reason an outboard motor is specified --- both do specific functions that require many precisely interacting parts” (M. Behe) „ “Dembski dealt with assembly of a discrete combinatorial object, not the genome of an organism” „ but which is more complex? An object or the code/plans to make it?

11 Objection to ID

„ “Christians should accept (a theistic version of) macro-evolution just like you accept the weather as being ‘natural’ phenomena…why do you insist on God acting directly to make organisms if you don’t require it for the weather?” „ OK, but note: If one believes that God upholds the world in an indirect way, always mediated by secondary causes, he must, on pain of infinite regress, grant that God also does some things directly, because “presumably He can’t cause an effect indirectly without also, at some point, acting directly….” (A. Plantinga, “Methodological Naturalism?,” Part 2) „ When does God act directly, when indirectly? Do we know? Consider an example…

Christian Views of causation and providence: e.g. Ezra favored by Artaxerxes (unknown/speculative (first cause) secondary causes) God works all things after the God directly affected counsel of His own will, for His own neurons in Art’s brain during a dream, causing him to glory (Ephesians 1, Romans 9) favor Ezra (?) (revealed secondary causes) {“VOLUNTARIST”} From before time began, The hand of the Lord was on Ezra (Ezra God set up Art’s genetics 7:6, 9, 28; 8:31) and physiology so that he would act as he did when he God put it into Artaxerxes’ heart to show did (?) {“INTELLECTUALIST”, favor to support Ezra and beautify the e.g. Leibniz} temple in Jerusalem (7:27) (event) “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever King Artaxerxes He will.” (Proverbs 21:1) granted Ezra all that he asked (Ezra 7:6)

12 But isn’t science committed to methodological naturalism?

„ Looking for design can still fit under the umbrella of naturalism (e.g. archaeology, SETI) „ Inference of “design” does not identify the designer „ Darwin invited falsification „ Reasons typically advanced for MN (see Ratzsch and Plantinga): „ non-observance of MN has failed in the past and led to God-of-the-gaps embarrassments [pragmatic; one can’t a priori rule out the existence of a designing agent] „ science requires MN by definition [ignores metaphysical commitments of science; wrongly assumes an agreed-upon formal definition of science; may require science to deliberately ignore significant features in the material realm; does not follow the evidence wherever it leads] „ science always looks for secondary causes [not when it looks for design (archaeology, SETI); even if so, a layer of secondary causes and design are not mutually exclusive—e.g. hypothetical meteor pattern on moon (Ratzsch, p. 127)] „ scientific theories must have empirical content; those not rooted in MN are empirically empty [ignores principlesprinciples like the uniformity of nature, which is untestable; ignores the calculation of CSI, which is based on observation and measurement]

Next steps for ID? „ Clarify why living creatures are “specified” „ Develop a positive, fruitful scientific research program, for example (?): „ Demonstrate/assess odds of „ Stanley Miller expt outcome „ particular genetic sequences and algorithms „ provide a better rationale for “junk DNA”

„ Emphasize “design” in laws/processes, not just objects (exp. filter makes “law” a non-design category) „ Justify why “design” gets a privileged position at the end of the explanatory filter; why is “design” preferred to “unknown regularity”?

13 Concluding thoughts „ ID has drawn attention to difficulties in and exaggerated claims of macro-evolution

„ both have work to do…. „ On the other hand, be wary of putting too much faith in ID. It’s a work in progress, and not a distinctively Christian apologetic „ ID obviously doesn’t deserve the authority or the attention that the Scriptures do „ There are various ways to view God’s providential control and creation

„ regularity in nature (e.g. gravity, trees growing, nuclear forces) is an aspect of God’s creation and providence; it is designed, and this is not much emphasized in ID „ we don’t usually know the means (detailed 2nd causes) by which God providentially acts

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter V, Providence

II. Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently. [Acts 2:23; Gen. 8:22; 1 Kings 22:28, 34; Is. 10:6-7] III. God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure. [Hos. 1:7; Ro. 9:19-21; 2 Kings 6:6, Dan. 3:27]

14 Backup slides

Methodological naturalism, cont’d

„ What subjects are to be addressed via methodological naturalism? Some subjects more “neutral” than others „ physics, chemistry? Little debate here…. „ mathematics? Some debate…. „ biology, anthropology, theology, counseling, cosmic- fine tuning? Much debate here…. „ Why should a Christian not bring everything he knows/believes to his discipline?

15 More objections to ID „ ID is a “God of the gaps” argument „ gap = lack of causal history of phenomenon „ design = claim that the phen. came to be because of a mind or intelligent agent „ design in “laws” vs. design in “objects” „ ID isn’t science, it’s religion or philosophy „ deal with the argument; is the argument irrational? „ ID not falsifiable by empirical means „ there are several ways to falsify particular claims of ID (e.g. show that the bacterial flagellum is NOT irreducibly complex); Ken Miller is attempting to show that the bacterial flagellum is not IC and/or that it came from the Type III Secretion Apparatus „ “God wouldn’t have done it this way” OR “the design is not perfect”, a.k.a. “suboptimal design” or “dysteleology” „ assumes the Creator’s intent is understood; that our “optimal” equates with His purpose

More Objections to ID

„ “Evolutionary algorithms may be ‘regularities’ we don’t yet understand; Dembski didn’t (couldn’t) take these into account…he is claiming a type of omniscience in saying that an Intelligent Designer is required” „ “Why does design get a privileged position (at the end of the explanatory filter), catching anything that we can’t attribute to physical regularity or chance?” „ Who has the burden of proof? „ “Science must form its conclusions on the basis of available evidence, not on the possibility of future evidence….why must all gaps in our knowledge ultimately be filled by non-intelligent causes?” (Wm. Dembski) vs. „ “Macro-evolution has un-resolved questions, gaps in knowledge, but the answers to these questions are to be found scientifically, not in a hasty retreat to ‘God did it’…..” „ How extraordinary do circumstances have to be to invoke design as an explanation? Beware of “God of the gaps” arguments, but know that not all gaps are created equal

16 PuttinPuttingg the iningredientsgredients totogether:gether: The analogy of typographical errors (30% characters in error)

Most people can recognize the typo-challenged GA as the GA when it has a 30% error level; however, it does NOT function effectively as the GA when it has this level of error

Typographical errors: 0% characters in error

The point: a certain large number of typographical errors can exist (say, 30%), and the document can still be recognized as the GA (and not another document); as the number of errors is reduced (say, to 5%) the GA actually is able to fulfill its function; typo- challenged instruction sets can still ‘work’… “what is of interest is not a unique arrangement but all the arrangements that preserve some function as well as how these function-preserving arrangements relate to the totality of possible arrangements" (Dembski, NFL, p. 295).

17 Assembly “pconfig” calculation 1. m=number of symbols or characters available=30 2. n=number of spaces for symbols or characters=1000 [note that the Gettysburg address actually has approximately 1486 characters] 3. P=number of possible sequences of symbols=m 4. k=error ratio allowed for recognition, identification of attempted/intended function of the organism (or text) [e.g. do we recognize this text as being the Gettysburg Address, and not some other text?]; this is Dembski’s perturbation identity factor 5. j=error ratio allowed for function of the organism (or text) [e.g. does this text accomplish the function of informing, motivating, comforting, inspiring that the Gettysburg Address does?]; this is Dembski’s perturbation tolerance factor 6. M=number of sequences that differ from the target sequence in at most int(jn) places 7. N=number of sequences that differ from the target sequence in at most int(kn) places 8. The probability of configuring a functional sequence is taken to be pconfig = (M+1)/(N+1). It is not taken to be (M+1)/P because we are looking at the odds of assembling one particular functional organism, given that we have an assembly that resembles the organism. 9. On page 297 of No Free Lunch, Dembski approximates the ratio (M+1)/(N+1) as the ratio of the leading-order terms. He uses j=0.1, k=0.2, m=30 and n=1000:

=exp(-511.761)=5.6X10-223

ID spans part of the spectrum of positions*

STEPHEN FRANCIS KEN HAWKING CRICK Intelligent Design HAM PAUL ALVIN WALTER DUANE DAVIES PLANTINGA BRADLEY GISH CARL SAGAN ANTONY STEPHEN HENRY FLEW MORRIS MEYER DOUGLAS KENNETH HUGH KELLY ICR RICHARD WILLIAM MILLER ROSS DAWKINS DEMBSKI MICHAEL HOWARD PAUL JOSEPH BEHE PHILLIP STEPHEN VAN TILL JOHNSON NELSON PIPA JAY GOULD JOHN J. GRESHAM MICHAEL POLKINGHORNE R.C. RUSE MACHEN E. J. YOUNG BB BRUCE SPROUL E. O. WILSON WARFIELD M. G. KLINE WALTKE Naturalistic Theistic “Old Earth Creation” or Traditional Evolution: The Evolution: “Progressive Creation”: Creationism: universe is all there “God made the Genesis 1 creation “days” are long Creation in six 24-hour is, and we exist by world so it would intervals of time; earth may be billions periods; earth is approx. chance make itself” of years old 6000 years old

*Names are representative; their positions are approximate, based on my judgment; there is also at least one agnostic advocate of ID, and a wide range of “TE” views, so the diagram is not complete…

18