Intelligent Design: pious fraud?

I object to Intelligent Design because it's bad science and very bad theology. I think that it wrecks our evangelization efforts and it damages the Faith to link evangelization to a demonstrably weak idea with intellectually dishonest proponents. Fortunately, many scientists and theologians agree here here and here.

To demonstrate the problems,  I will set out an accurate description of Intelligent Design theory.  Intelligent Design has two proponents who have published books putting forth its scientific basis--Michael Behe and William Dembski.

The first is Michael Behe's 1996 book, Darwin's Black Box. (reviewed) Let's carefully note that Behe fully accepts evolution 's main points. First, he acknowledges that evolution occurs through natural selection.  Next, he does not dispute that all life on earth probably descended from a  common ancestor. He does not make the silly arguments often heard that "evolution is just a theory," the fossil record is "incomplete" or that there are "no transitional fossils." These arguments are the ones made by uneducated fundamentalist creationists (and many ID proponents as well).  However, not all creationists are uneducated.  Answers in Genesis, for example, is an intellectually honest young earth creationist ( Earth created less than 10,000 years ago) organization which acknowledges these arguments are poor and should not be made.

Behe, however, notes that, although evolution is almost always the explanation, once in awhile, at the molecular level, some biological systems are "irreducibly complex" and could not have evolved. The system therefore must have been created "all in one piece." Here is his definition: "An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional."

In his book, Behe identifies a few such systems, including the blood clotting mechanism and bacterial flagella, for example.  Since his 1996 book, however, science has continued and has demonstrated that his proposed systems are not irreducibly complex and identified evolutionary pathways for those systems.  Since 1996 he has not proposed any new irreducibly complex systems and has admitted that irreducible complexity as a definition has analytical problems. In a 2001 Biology and Philosophy article,  Behe noted that “there is an asymmetry between my current definition of irreducible complexity and the task facing natural selection. I hope to repair that in future work.” Since then, he has published four articles, none relating to design critiques of evolution or addressing irreducible complexity. He now admits that irreducibly complex structures can evolve and the irreducibility is a matter of degree. That renders the concept pretty useless as a scientific design detection method. No further word on when he might identify any other systems or perform he promised repair work.  At this stage his work qualifies as an interesting idea--with no real world examples he is still willing to propose. There is substantial literature pointing out that his irreducibly complex ideas are neither new or valid.

Dembski is the second proponent. His books can be found here. Dembski constructed an "Explanatory Filter" to analyze whether a particular event is “designed.” This is a three step process eliminating various options at each step:

(1) An event that occurs frequently is the result of a natural law, or “regularity” to use Dembski’s phrase.  Planets, for example, are observed to orbit the sun in precisely controlled paths of very high predictability.  This appearance of design is a regularity governed by Newton's laws of motion.

(2) If the event does not very often, it may be governed by chance. A bug hitting a windshield is a matter of chance. Bad luck for the bug in question, but most bugs will fly around without running into windshields.

(3) However, some matters are so rare, that something other than chance may be operating.  Here Dembski introduces three concepts: “complex”  “information” and “specified.” Dembski needs to introduce the concept of complex specified information because it is a truism that very rare events occur and these events are clearly not the result of design. Somebody will win the lottery no matter how many people enter.

Dembski does a probability calculation suggesting that when the probabilities are so remote, we can reasonably eliminate chance. Therefore, design is all that's left.  There are two problems with Dembski's filter. First he concedes it doesn't eliminate 'false negatives."  In short , this means his filter will not always identify design where it clearly exists.  That's not a fatal problem because Dembski assures us that his filter will never have a false positive. If it detects design he claims it's always right. But he's wrong. He never apples his efforts to any real world system, it's all theoretical.  The reason for this is that he rejects what he calls "side information" in determining design. Side information is information relating tot he nature of the designer, the intended sue of the object, etc.

here are four pictures to demonstrate the difficulty:

Some of these were designed and some were not. Dembski's explanatory filter would result in astronomical odds of some of these objects an dconclude they were intelligently designed--false positives.  Others can be shown to be designed only by the use of "side information," which Dembski says is not needed.

Perhaps the most colossal false positive was the discovery by Percival Lowell of canals on Mars. Percival Lowell saw that many Martian canals meet at each of several points. The odds of this happening by chance, he calculated, are less than 1 in 1.6 x 10^*260

This is well above Dembski's  upper limit for design of 1 x 10 to the 150th power. Dembski himself admits the possibility of error . He says:

Now it can happen that we may not know enough to determine all the relevant chance hypotheses. Alternatively, we might think we know the relevant chance hypotheses, but later discover that we missed a crucial one. In the one case a design inference could not even get going; in the other, it would be mistaken. But these are the risks of empirical inquiry, which of its nature is fallible.

Dembski is conceding that we can never reliably calculate the odds indicating design because, as Lowell did, we overlook a crucial component. That's why Dembski refuses to ever apply his calculations to real world objects like those depicted above. False positives would be quickly identified. Criticisms of Dembski's mathematical work abound and Dembski apparently now has decided to teach theology full time.

This is the foundation for Intelligent design--that there are some natural organic systems which could not have not evolved but which had to be specially created.  Created by who?  Well, we don't know. All we know is that we humans didn't do it. The key to understanding Intelligent Design is that it teaches that evolution is not the answer to the biological diversity we see around us.  That diversity only came out by the occurrence of miracles.  Intelligent Design boldly promises that we can reliably detect miracles--supernatural interventions in everyday life.

But is it science?  What research is currently being conducted to identify irreducibly complex biological structures? None.  What research is being done to calculate the probabilities of various real world objects using Dembski's explanatory filter?  None.  Any government grants? No. Any university research grants for basic scientific research into these fields? No.  Does the Discovery Institute fund a laboratory program for Intelligent Design?  No, but its public relations program is well funded!

ID is a form of natural theology prominent among protestant evangelists such as William Paley in the late 1700's and early 1800's and since pretty much rejected.  It's not Catholic theology. I'm really wondering if that explains why most of the Catholic proponents of Intelligent Design are former protestants.  There is an Immanence in the genuine Catholic theology of creation, CCC 300, 301 and 302, that is simply absent in Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design theory is nothing other than an attempt to convince people to believe in God by some scientific evidence of natural objects. This is an old and ineffective argument--a theology of magic. You want magical proof of God? go buy a tortilla. This method is scientifically indistinguishable from ID, and that's why apologists invoking ID make Christians in general and Catholics in particular look foolish. Don't make my religion look foolish.

The remainder of the Discovery Institute ID proponents are simply engaged in intellectual dishonesty. I've already linked Phillip. E. Johnson's conspiracy theories, where he is claiming that all of science is involved in a conspiracy to conceal evolution's weaknesses and the cause of AIDS, as well. I have no time or patience for conspiracy theorists.

Update: Neither does John Derbyshire at The Corner here and here.

Comments

[Talmida]

Y'know, I think I am finally understanding a bit about this subject. And maybe I'm even getting a glimmer of why it is so important. I really enjoyed Lamoureux's paper, especially the section on pastoral implications:

What happens to the child who is taught Johnson's progressive creationism in a Christian school or a Church Sunday school, and then he or she sees the scientific data for evolution first hand in the paleontological museum at the university? I, like others, have seen this scenario actually unfold with the disastrous spiritual consequences.

This brings it home for me.

Thanks for posting this.

[Unapologetic Catholic]

That's my biggest gripe-- If you find out that your local Church peopel are telling falsehods about such an important thing you begin to wonder if they got anything right.

Also many people are ready to be religious but when drivel is delivered with apparent approval by a church, people will reject that church. We shouldn't make it more difficult than it already is to join the Catholic Church.

[Steve Bogner]

My boys have learned about evolution in their Catholic school for years now. Evolution fits right in with the Montessori approach they use there. ID, to my knowledge, has never even been looked at as an option.

[Unapologetic Catholic]

Cathoilcs, and catholic schools don't have a problem with evolution. In fact, in resposne to you earlier post, that was one more reason to send my sons to catholi schools--the evolution wouldn't be short shrifted or watered down as it was in public schools. On the other exreme, many homeschooling resources teach Intelligent Design, doing a great disservice to their children. In the creationist evolution debates, it's almost always a fundamentalist protestant led battle, although there are a few fundamentalist Catholics as well.

[Citizenfitz]

Irrespective of ID, darwinism is so full of philosophical errors, voodoo science, and outright deception that one can be forgiven for deciding it scarcely merits being called a hypothesis, let alone a theory.

Most of darwinism's devotees are avowed free thinkers/atheists. They're visibly impatient with religion in general and with Christianity in particular. This latter perhaps more than any other, seems to be the defining feature of the system. Darwinists may not be able to agree on anything else, but they're quite united in their unhappiness with Christianity.

[Carla]

I'm reading this with interest while trying, as Catholic homeschoolers, to choose a good science text for my 9th grader. I agree with what you have said but am left with few options in regard to good science textbooks. I understand that the Prentice Hall books are, sadly, fraught with scientific errors. Any other ideas?

[BJ]

So you believe in God, but think everything evolved from nothing by random, unobserved and unguided chance. You sir, are one extremely mixed up human being.

[Frank DeAngelis]

Evidently, the philosophical and metaphysical presuppositions extant in neo-Darwinian theory are unknown by the author. The incompatibility between neo-Darwinian evolution and the concept of the Creator God revealed in Genesis are so polar, so at odds, that any attempt to merge the two is an excercise in futility. So they have opted for a third option -- reject the historic understanding of the Church in regard to Genesis and kneel before the altar of atheistic Darwinism in order to garner secular acceptance.

Where to spend those 30 pieces...

The fact is, the Catholic church as an organization -- but thankfully not all Catholics -- has taken its cue (ironically) from Liberal Protestantism. A theology and Bible gutted of its foundational premise, a theology and Bible totally disconnected with the real space-time universe in any meaningful way.

These people are embarassed by the historical claims of the Bible and have attempted to redefine them, totally apart from the literary genre of Genesis (it is historical narrative -- just say you don't believe in it, don't redefine it as "poetry") and any serious exegesis of the text.

In may ways, the Catholic Church, like Liberal Protestantism, is post-Christian. When the Son of Man returns, will He find the faith?