An Intelligent Reply to Intelligent-Design Critics
AN INTELLIGENT REPLY TO INTELLIGENT-DESIGN CRITICS
By Hendrik van der Breggen
Several Record readers recently raised a flurry of criticisms concerning my article, “There’s an intelligent defence for intelligent design” (August 23), in which I deflated some philosophical objections to intelligent design as a scientific explanation of life’s origins. I would like to reply to two important and widely-held criticisms from that flurry, and I would like to do so in such a way that many of the minor and less-widely-held criticisms presented in the flurry are addressed as well. My hope is that thereby I could continue to encourage the public and the scientific community to give intelligent design a fair hearing.
Criticism 1: Intelligent design is not falsifiable or testable.
Reply: This is patently untrue. The intelligent design hypothesis predicts (retrodicts) that life’s origin is due to an intelligent cause, be it God or whomever. The hypothesis is falsifiable/testable because, in principle, evidence can be mustered to show that an intelligent cause was at work or not.
Significantly, intelligent design, though falsifiable in principle, has not been falsified in fact.
But don’t take my word for it. Consider the following comments from credible scientists and science reporters concerning the scientific community’s ongoing failure to explain life by non-intelligent causes.
Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA’s structure): “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to be satisfied to get it going.” (Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature [New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981], 88.)
Klause Dose (of the Mainz Institute for Biochemistry): “More than 30 years of experimentations on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussion on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.” (Klause Dose, “The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers,” Interdisciplinary Science Review 13 [1988]: 348.)
Paul Davies (theoretical physicist turned origin-of-life investigator): “[S]cientists are currently stumped…. The problem of how and when life began is one of the great outstanding mysteries of science.” (Paul Davies, The 5th Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life [New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999], 19, 27.)
Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross (a biochemist and astronomer reporting on a combined meeting of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life plus the International Conference on the Origin of Life): “Some 45 years of well-funded investigation have led to one dead end after another. The same intractable problems still remain, with no glimmering of resolution in sight.” (Fazale Rana & Hugh Ross, “Life From the Heavens? Not This Way…,” Facts For Faith 1 (2000): 11.
Nicholas Wade (New York Times science-writer summarizing the results of the scientific community’s attempt to explain the origin of life solely in terms of non-intelligent causes): “Everything about the origin of life on earth is a mystery, and it seems the more that is known, the more acute the puzzles get.” Wade adds: “The genesis of life on earth . . . remains an unyielding problem.” (Nicholas Wade, “Life’s Origins Get Murkier and Messier,” The New York Times [June 13, 2000], F1, F2.)
In other words, scientists (not philosophers) have demonstrated that non-intelligent causes are deeply problematic as explanations for life’s origin. Significantly, this means that attempts to falsify intelligent design have been made, and have been found wanting.
But this means too that nature’s prima facie evidence for intelligent design hasn’t been explained away. Nature’s apparent design remains.
But there is more. Intelligent design is also positively supported by scientific discoveries which show that biological life’s complexities are analogous to the effects of known intelligent causes.
For example, DNA is like a language/code. Even Bill Gates of Microsoft has observed that “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” (Bill Gates, The Road Ahead, 2nd edition [New York: Penguin Books, 1996], 228.)
Also, the cell’s interior is like a factory (some say city) filled with highly complex and intricately coordinated machines—machines that are “like the machines invented by humans,” as even evolutionist Bruce Alberts, former President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, admits. (Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell 92 [February 6, 1998]: 291.)
Surely, evidence and good reasoning can test these analogies to effects of known intelligent causes
Thus, criticism 1—that intelligent design is not falsifiable or testable—does not weaken intelligent design.
(For more discussion about testing the analogies between, on the one hand, the universe’s fine-tuning for life, the molecular machines of the cell, and DNA’s code/language, and, on the other hand, the effects of known intelligent causes, see chapter 4 of my “Miracle Reports, Moral Philosophy, and Contemporary Science” [PhD dissertation, University of Waterloo, 2004]. Several copies of my dissertation are available at the University of Waterloo. For more discussion of testability, refutability, and predictability, see William A. Dembski’s The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004], 280-290.)
Criticism 2: We know only of intelligent causes located in biological systems, so appealing to unembodied, nonphysical intelligence is a conceptual error.
Reply: There is no conceptual error. Empirically, we know that intelligent causes (apart from one’s self) exist because of their physical effects. This is plainly so with humans. However, from the fact that all human intelligent causes are located in biological systems, it doesn’t follow that all intelligent causes must be embodied. Whether we know empirically that an intelligent cause can exist unembodied (as, say, the cause of the big bang’s fine-tuning and life’s subsequent origin) depends on whether there are empirical effects that point to such a cause; not on prior stipulations or rulings that disallow such causes.
To rule that an unembodied intelligent cause cannot be a scientific explanation of effects which clearly point to such intelligence is to constrain science by a materialist philosophy that will not allow what may be the best explanation of the empirical evidence.
* * *
Should intelligent design be taught in public schools as a theory of life’s origins alongside the theory of evolution (where “evolution” is understood as not allowing for any influence of an intelligent cause)? Obviously, there is much controversy on this question, and much remains to be discussed. As scientists learn to consider the merits of intelligent design without being unduly influenced by a materialist philosophical bias, I think we can at least agree on this: Public school curricula should include good science instruction on evolution’s successes AND on evolution’s shortcomings.
In this regard, I recommend biologist Jonathan Wells’ book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publications, 2000).
Comment from Jonathan Dursi:
This is no more than `proof by assertion’.
Hendrik’s response (1 of 4): Hello Jonathan. No, this is not a mere “proof by assertion.” I go on to give reasons.
Jonathan’s comment continued:
Not just to be scientific, but to be a useful explanation for something, a real theory must be falsifiable. It must make useful predictions that can be tested and potentially be shown to be false. If it makes no predictions beyond its own statement, it simply has no use.
So you assert that Intelligent Design is falsifiable. So I ask you; please describe an experiment or measurement where one outcome would be evidence for Intelligent design, but another would convince you that Intelligent Design was false . Until you or other advocates can describe such an experiment, Intelligent Design remains unfalsifiable
Hendrik’s response (2 of 4): See my comments at the end.
Jonathan’s comment continued:
For those used to philosophical or theological thinking, this may seem a strange way to do things; an interesting idea may be worth following in its own right, regardless of its connection to an objective reality. But this idea that any useful theory must be powerful enough to potentially contain its own disproof is absolutely fundamental to science. Any idea which is not powerful enough to make testable predictions is not science. Maybe it’s interesting in a philisophical sense, but it is not science.
Your (largely quote-mined and taken out of context) quotes from scientists are largely of the form “we don’t know yet'’, which is exactly the `God of the Gaps’ argument. 100 years of biological investigation has produced far more knowledge about life and its origins than millenia of religious thought. The next 100 years will bring even more knowledge. Saying that something isn’t known today is not argument for intelligent design; and using `quotes’ to prove something is called `appeal to authority’.
Produce some evidence, and scientists will pay attention. Produce poor argumentation and fallacy, and you injure theology more than you injure science.
Hendrik’s response (3 of 4): I want to say a few words about your criticisms of my use of quotes. You charge me of taking a quote out of context. You seem not to realize, however, that to make your charge stick, you need to do much more than make a mere assertion. You need to substantiate your assertion by presenting good reasons for thinking that the meaning of the quote has changed significantly in the absence of its old surroundings. But you do not do this. So your charge doesn’t stick. Also, you charge me of making an appeal to authority as if by that fact alone I am making a fallacious argument. However, again you seem not to realize that you need to back up your charge with good reasons to take it out of the realm of mere assertion. In addition, you also seem not to realize that not all appeals to authority are fallacious. Some appeals to authority are legitimate from the point of view of critical thinking. So, again, your charge does not stick. For a good discussion of appeals to authority, see Ralph H. Johnson & J. Anthony Blair’s Logical Self-Defense (McGraw-Hill, 1994), 167-176. Trudy Govier’s A Practical Study of Argument (Wadsworth/Thomson, 2005), 141-145, is helpful too.
Hendrik’s response (4 of 4): Intelligent Design (ID) predicts that an intelligent agent brought about the origin of life, and, contrary to what you think, this prediction can be tested and potentially shown to be false. It’s in principle possible to falsify it (i.e., make a case against it) by showing that non-intelligent causes did it: e.g., chemical evolution. Interestingly, as my quotes give good reason to believe, attempts to falsify the ID hypothesis have failed—failed despite the facts that our scientists have great science educations, well-funded research laboratories, tenured appointments, plus decades of opportunity. That counts in favour of ID, surely at least in part. Why? Because the prima facie evidence of design remains. Think about it. The evidence on its face looks very much like it is designed—even Oxford University’s Richard Dawkins (a vehement opponent of ID) acknowledges the prima facie evidence of nature’s design when he describes biology as “the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker [Harlow: Longman Scientific and Technical, 1986], 1.) However, the attempts to explain away this design fail, so design remains.
But there is more to consider besides the prima facie evidence for design. The ID hypothesis predicts not just that non-intelligent causes didn’t produce life’s origin but also that an intelligent cause produced it. We have seen that there is prima facie evidence for design. Now the question is: Does the evidence that non-intelligent causes very apparently can’t explain provide any positive evidence beyond mere apparent design for the effects of intelligence (that is, evidence for design that is stronger than the surface evidence)? Does, say, DNA have deeper features that only known intelligent agents have? Does, say, the cell’s interior have these features too? ID proponents contend that DNA’s code/language and the cell’s molecular machinery have features relevantly analogous to structures that are known to be designed by an intelligent cause. In fact, DNA’s language/code is more sophisticated than our best computer programs. In fact, the cell’s interior is a factory (some say city) with interconnected systems of intricate and complex machines. So the case for ID is not an argument from ignorance (i.e., from gaps in our knowledge), it’s an argument from what we know—it’s an argument based on what we know non-intelligent causes can’t do and on what we know intelligent causes can do.
Now, what might a test for ID look like? To answer this important question, I suggest that you look at the chapter “Testability” in William A. Dembski’s book The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design (InterVarsity Press, 2004), 280-290. Also, I suggest that you look at Access Research Network’s THE POSITIVE CASE FOR DESIGN.
I hope that the above is of some help to you.
With best regards,
Hendrik
Comment by Jonathan Dursi — November 14, 2005 @ 3:14 pm
Comment from Jonathan Dursi:
No one who is honest can recommend `Icons of Evolution’ by Wells. There is almost literally nothing correct in that text, and its only use is as propaganda for an agenda, used by people who aren’t particularly concerned about the truth of their arguments.
Hendrik’s response:
Hi Jonathan,
Although I appreciate your taking the time to read my article and leave a comment, I’m disappointed that you are so quick to accuse me of moral failure (which is a serious charge). You say “No one who is honest can recommend ‘Icons of Evolution’ by Wells.” I recommend it. Therefore, I must be dishonest. Surely, though, it’s possible that I’m honestly mistaken. Moreover, you don’t even know me yet you judge me on a deeply personal level. Clearly, you are much too quick to pass moral judgment on another person.
I am disappointed too at how readily you dismiss almost literally everything in Jonathan Wells’ book. Yes, I realize that there are many criticisms of Wells’ work (such as those in the link you provide). But I also realize that, in a controversial issue, both the pros and the cons should be taken into account on the scale of considerations, not just the cons. It turns out that I and many other philosophers and scientists have come to the conclusion that, even though Wells has many critics, the overall weight of the actual evidence plus the good reasoning therefrom favours Wells’ work. Of course, you and others are welcome to disagree. But you clearly go too far in dismissing Wells’ book to the extent that you do. Wells does in fact make quite a few good criticisms of evolution. In defence of my last point, I recommend (again) Wells’ book Icons of Evolution. I also recommend Wells’ reply to his critics: “Critics Rave Over Icons of Evolution: A Response to Published Reviews.”
With best regards,
Hendrik
Comment by Jonathan Dursi — November 14, 2005 @ 3:17 pm
Comment from Jeffrey Shallit:
Having read a draft of your [PhD] thesis, I’m with Jonathan. In my opinion, it was an intellectually dishonest piece of work, taking the views of a small minority of scientists and portraying them as mainstream, and avoiding mentioning critiques of those views.
In particular, Wells has been so thoroughly discredited that I don’t see how anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty can recommend him.
Hendrik’s response:
Hi Jeffrey,
You are welcome to your opinion about my PhD dissertation. However, I believe — along with my PhD dissertation examining committee — that your opinion is founded on poor reasoning. Also, I recommend that you do not judge a finished PhD dissertation on the basis of a pre-oral-defence draft, because by doing so you commit the fallacy of hasty conclusion. In my case, after the oral defence I took into account in my revisions any important but missed criticisms (of which there was only a very small number) to the satisfaction of my examiners.
For the record: In my dissertation I do not take the views of a small minority of scientists and portray them as mainstream, nor do I avoid mentioning critiques of the views of the scientists whose views I consider. Also, in my dissertation I account for most of your criticisms by refuting them with good arguments, and I take seriously your occasional good criticism (emphasis on the word occasional) by adjusting my dissertation accordingly. For your good criticisms I am grateful.
Regarding Wells, I think that my comment to Jonathan is satisfactory.
Best wishes only,
Hendrik
Comment by Jeffrey Shallit — November 24, 2005 @ 5:05 pm