Students and Early Career Scientists Corner Science or Sience: The Question of Intelligent Design Theory Science or Sience1: The Question of Intelligent Design Theory Jeff Mino Intelligent Design Theory (ID) has been much maligned recently as Neo-Creationist pseudo- science. This paper looks briefly at the common arguments used against ID, including arguments from methodological naturalism (MN), falsifiability, productivity, and religious fundamentalism. Ultimately it goes on to explain why the theory could be beneficial to our society today and suggests a need for a methodology of studying nature that exists alongside traditional science yet is not based on the precept of MN. ince the Enlightenment, many would pursuit of their profession. Likewise, some Jeff Mino Scontend that science and theology are theologians balk for a number of reasons, incompatible. Some argue that one including that ID sets up a god-of-the-gaps must accept either one or the other, while mentality, and our faith should be based on others argue that both may be accepted more than what we can observe, or that the because they cannot contradict. Science imperfection of organisms is contrary to the I believe [that] explores the physical, while religion explores scripturally attributed nature of God.2 How- the metaphysical. ever, I believe such concerns, while valid, can be overcome, and a conscientious meth- a conscientious It seems to me that whether one chooses odology of ID incorporated into the realm of to exclude either, or claims a separation scientific and theological acceptability. methodology of between them exists, something is lost either way. Ultimately, while science and religion ID [can be] may separately answer contextual-aware- Intelligent Design ness questions of who, where, why, when, Criteria incorporated and how, both overlap in the answer to the The question remains, however, what exactly question of what. What is existence and cre- does the concept of ID look like and how ation? In recent years, a hypothesis on the does it affect our practice? Essentially, ID is into the realm origins of the universe, life, and species has a critique on Darwin’s theory of evolution, arisen that has challenged the common wis- claiming that the latter is insufficient to of scientific and dom that science and the supernatural are account for the data found in nature. In nat- incompatible. This hypothesis is Intelligent uralistic science, only two explanations are theological Design (ID). accepted: either natural law (i.e., natural selection, genetic drift, etc.) or chance. ID As one might imagine, however, this suggests a third criterion: design. ID posits acceptability. hypothesis leaves a bitter taste in the mouths that evidence in nature implies its creation of some on either side of the argument. by more than the gradual process of random Many scientists chafe at the idea of ID, chance. Proposed by William Dembski, a phi- claiming it removes the necessary filter of losopher and mathematician, it is based on methodological naturalism (MN) from the the laws of probability, with its three main Jeff Mino is a recent graduate of Wheaton College, having majored in biology, criteria being contingency, complexity, and economics, and theology. During this past year, he worked full time as an EMT specification. out of St. Clare's Hospital system in his home state of New Jersey. In August, after a month-long medical internship in Sri Lanka, he moved on to begin fulfilling his Contingency simply means that there is longtime goal of becoming a physician by attending the Robert Wood Johnson choice in the ordering of a string of informa- School of Medicine. Email [email protected] tion, be it words in a sentence or nucleotides 226 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Jeff Mino in DNA. If 3 is required to follow 2, and 2 is required to other hand, if the targets are set up in advance follow 1, then contingency does not exist. In other words, (”specified”) and then the archer hits them accurately, systems must exhibit contingency as opposed to necessity. we know it was by design.3 By adding a requirement of specification on beforehand, saying that the order of a system must follow a precise, defined pattern essentially multiplies the probability of all Essentially, ID is a critique on Darwin’s orders against the probability of a specific, predetermined order such that it is exceedingly more likely to get any other theory of evolution, claiming that the order except the specified one. In fact, the probability is so unlikely that its occurrence essentially cannot be due latter is insufficient to account for the to natural law or chance. Therefore, if information is con- tingent, complex, and specified, then intelligent design data found in nature. In naturalistic is evident. science, only two explanations are Irreducible Complexity The clearest alleged example of Dembski’s “specified com- accepted: either natural law … or chance. plexity” in biological systems is what has become known as irreducible complexity. Michael Behe defines irreduc- ID suggests a third criterion: design. ible complexity as “an integrated multipart functional system where removing any of its parts destroys the sys- tem’s function.”4 There are three naturalistic possibilities as to how such a system could form. First, perhaps all Complexity states that while simple strings can be parts of the system evolved through direct evolutionary formed by chance, complex ones cannot. If one were to cut processes. However, since all parts of an irreducibly up a name into its individual letters, put them in a bag and complex system would have no function on their own, pull them out at random, given a sufficient amount of natural selection would not select for them. Thus, direct time one would almost certainly form the title by chance. evolutionary processes are ruled out. As design propo- However, if this entire paper were broken up into its con- nents would say: stituent letters and the same attempted, the probability of randomly achieving such a goal would be astronomical to It’s logically possible that with my very limited chess say the least. It would quite nearly take an eternity to ability I might defeat the reigning world champion accomplish. Dembski defines complexity as a string with in ten straight games. But if I do so, it will be despite a probability of 10-150 or essentially 500 bits of information. my limited chess ability and not because of it. Likewise, if the Darwinian mechanism is the means Of course, even Dembski concedes that low probability by which a direct Darwinian pathway leads to an does not rule out chance. The probability of a person win- irreducibly complex biochemical system, then it is ning the lottery is often one in millions. However, one despite the intrinsic properties or capacities of the should not therefore assume that if a person wins, cheat- mechanism.5 ing was involved. Similarly, if one were to lay out the Design proponents are not saying it is utterly impossible fifty-two cards in a deck, whatever pattern was presented that systems could form from a direct Darwinian process. would be equally as unlikely as any other (specifically They are simply saying it is vastly improbable. 8.06 x 10-67), even the one where all cards are arranged numerically. Thus critics of ID often argue that the exis- Secondly, perhaps all of the parts developed together at tence of life, however unlikely, can still be attributed to the same time. Of course, the chances of the entire system chance, besides which, the current configuration of life forming spontaneously are so exceedingly unlikely as to and the universe in general is no more unlikely than any rule this out immediately as well. Skeptics of ID admit the other. Ultimately, chance cannot be ruled out. Of course, logic of design proponents up to this point.6 However, those familiar with statistical analysis realize the problem they point to the third naturalistic mechanism: indirect with this statement, and this is where the third filter of evolution. This is the notion that parts of an irreducibly specification comes in. complex system originally had other purposes but were modified and used by the newly forming system. Theoret- Specification means there is a prior, specified pattern of ically, these subsystems would have “served some other intelligence detectable in a system. Here is an illustration. function (a function that could conceivably be subject If an archer shoots arrows into a wall and we then to selection pressure).”7 This is known as co-optation. paint bull’s-eyes around them, we impose a pattern Essentially, naturalists get around irreducible complexity after the fact. Thus there is no complexity. On the by hypothesizing that all parts of an irreducibly complex Volume 58, Number 3, September 2006 227 Students and Early Career Scientists Corner Science or Sience: The Question of Intelligent Design Theory system originally had functions of their own Even if evolutionary theory as cur- or were useful in other systems, but they rently accepted is wrong in some were eventually co-opted into the irreduc- fundamental way (and it is hard to see ibly complex system and have now lost their how this could be), the victory does original function. A similar possibility is that not go to intelligent design creation- these systems were originally parts of larger ism, because it clearly fails to provide systems that evolution whittled away until a better explanation of nature.10 they became irreducibly complex. However, The clearest How can Pigliucci say this with such cer- to date: tainty without presenting empirical data to alleged example [N]o indirect Darwinian pathways are support such a claim? His reasoning by- known.