The Flawed Philosophy of Intelligent Design

The time has come to be blunt. The problem with Intelligent Design is not that it is false; not that the arguments in its favor reduce to smoke and mirrors; and not that it's defenders are disingenuous or even duplicitous. The problem with Intelligent Design is that it is dumb. I would contend that ID is dumb biology; even if it is on to something, what it is on to has no connection and does no meaningful work in biology (or physics). However, and more significantly, ID is dumb philosophy.

First, and despite the claims of its defenders, ID is a position in natural theology. And, despite its name, natural theology is not a branch of theology or of science, but of philosophy.

Natural theology lives on the boundary of natural philosophy (science) and metaphysics. The fundamental question of natural theology is: given what we know about the world from natural science, is the best available metaphysical picture of the universe one according to which the objects of natural science form a closed system or, alternatively, one according to which at least one entity fundamentally different from the objects of natural science is required to explain the structure of the natural world.[1]

Once we recognize that ID is a metaphysical position, we can recognize that ID has two principle competitors: metaphysical naturalism and global non-naturalism. Both of these frameworks compete with ID as fundamental perspectives for understanding the world.

First, let us consider metaphysical naturalism. Roughly, a metaphysical naturalist claims that the world per se is roughly the way that the world is portrayed in the natural sciences. The first, but not principle advantage, of naturalism is its profoundly elegant simplicity; at its heart rests the intuition that the world simply is the way that it seems to be. However, to really understand the power of this intuition pursued to a philosophical conclusion we must be willing to embrace its power to drive David Hume's war against superstition and moral privilege. The power of the tools that naturalism puts at our disposal for understanding who we are and why we are the way we are; for understanding the real place of human beings in the cosmos; and for elevating the dignity of the ordinary, both ordinary human beings and the ordinary world, cannot be overestimated. If you don't feel the pull of naturalism, then even if you ultimately find it inadequate, as I do, you just don't get it.

On the other hand there are a wide variety of non-naturalist cosmologies. General characterizations of non-naturalism fall together much less straightforwardly than do such characterizations of naturalism. This is, at least in part, because of the much greater historical depth of non-naturalism. Although, today, naturalism does feel like the default metaphysical position for those who begin their metaphysics with natural science, that is a quite recent phenomenon. Unfortunately, not being naturalists is about the only thing that the various non-naturalists have in common.

Fortunately, the virtues of non-naturalism can be usefully characterized as just the opposing virtues to those of naturalism. The best non-naturalist cosmologies derive from a very real sense on the part of their defenders of the messiness of the world; a sense that, contrary to naturalist expectations, things don't come together when we look deeper. That is, naturalism seems to require that there be a scientific picture of the world. Instead, claim their opponents, things just get weirder. Whether we are looking at quantum theory; at the strange fact that stars ever manage to light their fusion engines; at the weird and totally unexpected patterns that crop up in the fossil and evolutionary record; how can anyone who really digs down, even if they don't ultimately agree, fail to feel the pull of a metaphysical picture, which, at least, explains how all of this weirdness manages to fit together into a WORLD?

And, what do the ID types want to set against these? Some kind of bastard child of naturalism and non-naturalism. According to ID, the world perked along perfectly fine for several billion years according to the rules of physics. Over most of space-time the naturalists have it basically right, things just sort of go the way they seem they should. Then, a couple of billion years ago, along came The Designer, not itself the product of those processes. It showed up and decided to take a bunch of these otherwise perfectly natural chemicals and put them together to make bacteria and then designed in a replication system. Then it left it alone for another several million years and decided, "Hey, I've got these bacteria around, let's collect them into these other things." And, so forth.

But, this is just dumb! It takes the real virtues of both real alternatives and turns them on their heads. If naturalists value metaphysical simplicity, the simplicity of ID becomes simplemindedness. The ID theorist response to any puzzle is to demand a simple solution, even if the simple solution amounts to deus ex machina. This isn't just lazy philosophy; it's lazy fiction. On the other hand, if non-naturalists have a valuable sensitivity to the messiness of the real world, the ID theorists goal is to make that messiness go away. Pointing at every gap in our understanding and saying, "See there goes God, or whoever." isn't sensitivity to complexity; it's just stupidity.

Consider one of the most fully developed alternative evolutionary cosmologies; that of Teilhard de Chardin.[2] De Chardin, one of the most celebrated paleo-anthropologists of his generation, noticed certain patterns in the evolutionary record available to him. In particular, he noticed what seemed to be patterns in the evolutionary record related to the evolution of central nervous system complexity, i.e. thought, that seemed to be surprising if the only constraints operating on biological evolution were basic physics, the physical boundary conditions and natural selection.

Trying to summarize his conclusions from this is just about as possible -- that is, it's not possible to do fairly -- as would be attempting to summarize, for example Richard Dawkins' attempt at an evolutionary account of vision. However, what follows should at least give the reader a taste.

Teilhard thought that he could "derive" the operative constraints on evolutionary systems necessary to generate the patterns he discerned. He argued that those constraints pointed to a global teleological structure for the entire universe. Roughly, these constraints are equivalent to postulating the evolution of conscious awareness, the noosphere, as a cosmological endpoint for all natural processes.

This is probably wrong, but it is real philosophy; you could spend years struggling with everything you need to really get a handle on in order to see where Teilhard goes wrong.

And this is the first thing to notice; unlike ID, Teilhard's cosmology is not a shortcut to anywhere. Teilhard's cosmology does not close off questions; it opens them up. And, if it is right, it really does help us make metaphysical sense of everything about the universe without having to abandon real science at any point in the process. That is, for Teilhard, as much as for any naturalist, we understand the universe by looking at the universe; not outside of it. In Teilhard's universe there are no dei ex machina; things happen in the universe because that's the way they happen in this universe. The difference is that this universe is not quite as straightforwardly self-subsistent as the naturalists would have it be.

And instead of attempts to really work through these problems, we are offered ID.

Consider the following example. Imagine yourself as a visiting alien; when surveying "Africa" you discover large termite mounds. Most of the crew gets right down to the business of studying termites and figuring out how they manage to produce their nests. But, a few make a different claim. Given that the termites are clearly not sentient, they decide that the termites could not possibly have built their nests in the absence of an independent sentient nest designer -- The Termite Farmer. Therefore, they take off and go looking for The Termite Farmer instead of studying what termites actually do.

Among what I would call "real" termite biologists there can be both naturalist and non-naturalists. That is, some of them think that what you see is what you get; others think that there is something more subtle going on with the termites. However, unlike the design theorists, they both think that you learn about termites by studying termites. Not, by wandering around looking for hypothetical termite designers. However, it's actually worse than that. It's as if the believers in termite-mound designers didn't just go around being pains in the neck to real biologists by pointing out the places they don't quite understand yet; problems with which the real termite biologists are, of course, already perfectly familiar. Instead of either getting down to work or getting out of the way, they go around crowing that termite biologists get it all wrong because the termite-designers tried to make it look as if they, the designers, didn't exist. That is, ID theorists need to claim that, although life looks like a fundamentally natural process subject to natural explanation, that naturalness is an illusion. But, this isn't just bad science or bad philosophy; it's a conspiracy theory fit for The X-files, and thus, while it may not be religion, it certainly is just dumb!

The author is Senior Lecturer in the Philosophy Department at Loyola University, Chicago.

[1] There is another branch of "natural" theology, one that operates from an a priori basis. This family of arguments attempts to prove that possession of certain concepts or the ability to make certain judgments implies the existence of a "divine" being. Anselm's argument, what Kant calls the Ontological Argument, is the quintessential example.

2 Despite the claims of many naturalists, de Chardin does not make an argument from design in the sense at issue here. See Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea : Evolution and the Meanings of Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995).for an example of this mistake. See Stephen Toulmin, The Return to Cosmology for a (roughly) naturalist engagement with Teilhard which avoids this mistake.

I have only the incredibly circumstantial evidence of massive fossil records, ice cores, radio isotope dating, the fact that Oxygen would vanish in a few million years without a constant source of it on the planet, massive evidence of anaerobic bacteria and life forms before this event, and the complete absence of them afterwards, the arrival of whole new forms of life that used photosynthesis rather than metal-acid reactions as energy sources, and then another set that suddenly use redox reactions for the first time in the fossil record, thousands of scientific papers, thousands of books, millions of established scientific facts and researchers agreeing, the fact that Oxygen in inorganic chemistry is a corrosive, quickly absorbed gas that almost never, ever occurs in its elemental form in nature.

These kind of statements are why people need to understand the limitations of science. You talk about scientific facts but there really are none about the past that are facts.

For example, isochron or radiometric dating values are based on quite a few assumptions and guesses about the nature of the rocks around the fossil, and the formulas for determining decay and half-lives of elements are based on highly unstable elements in nuclear reactors that have nanosecond life times so even dating a fossil is making hundreds of untestable assumptions about the age of the fossil.

That is why scientific theories can never be proven, because science has to make assumptions that cannot be proven just to get started.

What is wierd about theories like evolution that deal with the past, most of your "evidence" is itself theoretical and since none of it can be tested, the more assumptions that are made, the shakier it gets.

The age of every fossil ever found is quite theoretical. Basically everything you stated above as evidence is theoretical in nature and the whole theory of evolution is built on theories backing up other theories.

The sciences that produce results are ones that are testable in real time against nature today. Evolutionary theory, at least in the historical perspective, is an exercise in speculation.

something tells me...

You make many assumptions and many leaps of logic. How do you have time for all this?

So far I have not made a single statement about what I believe about evolution, ID, genetic algorithms or any other amusement. Yet you have decided what I believe, how much of your ramblings I've digested and, without checking, said that "something tells you" I labeled the word "dumb" an ad hominem attack.

No wonder you don't understand the stunning stupidity of these words: Evolution works in a computer system, there's no reason to believe it doesn't work in the natural world.

Do I have to spell it out or can you come up with it on your own? Here's a hint: try hard to think of a single reason why something that works on a computer doesn't also work in the natural world.

That is a *fact* not a conjecture. The evidence is massive and well researched. The level of confidence in the oxygen die-off is 99.99999999%. You'll note, it's not 100%, because that's the scientific method.

Well, you were asked to back up what you wrote. A link to something acceptable mirroring your numbers would be nice. Kinda like this.

Delays for the Earth's Oxygen Atmosphere

Summary - (Aug 9, 2005) Our planet gained its nice, oxygen-rich atmosphere about 2.4 billion years ago thanks to early bacteria. One question that has puzzled researchers, however, is why it took at least 300 million years for oxygen to build up to large levels, even though the bacteria had been working madly to produce it. Researchers from the University of Washington have developed a model that shows how volcanic gasses could have sucked up this available oxygen. Not only that, but a large layer of iron from meteorite strikes would have used it for rusting. Not until those sinks were filled could oxygen build up.

P.S. phytoplankton <> bacteria

This is the fundamental flaw in ID, because it ignores reproduction that mixes genes more or less randomly and selection for certain survival characteristics in the offspring.

No it doesn't. Especially, since evidence is that positive selection is not the big driver.

Thomas H. Jukes (1906–1999)

The neutral theory of molecular evolution in eukaryotes startedwith KIMURA 1968 . He argued that the rate of protein evolutionwas too fast to be compatible with HALDANE's (1957) cost ofnatural selection, and therefore most of the changes must beneutral, driven by mutation and random drift. KING and JUKES1969 had independently arrived at the same conclusion and discoveredKimura's paper while writing theirs. They submitted a manuscriptto Science, only to have it turned down. One reviewer said itwas obviously true and therefore trivial; the other said thatit was obviously wrong. King and Jukes appealed, and the secondtime it was accepted. This time I was a reviewer; if my recommendationwas decisive, I am pleased. The King and Jukes approach wasquite different from Kimura's and included a number of arguments.It was more convincing, partly because of their marshaling alarger variety of evidence and partly because of growing doubtof the applicability of Haldane's principle.

The King-Jukes paper had the intentionally provocative title,"Non-Darwinian evolution." [emphasis by poster] The theory produced an immediateoutcry from traditional students of evolution, undoubtedly abettedby the title. In the ensuing polemics, Kimura played the majorrole. King died prematurely in 1983 and Jukes wrote mainly aboutother things, although he did participate in one joint paper(JUKES and KIMURA 1984 ). One of his interests was the evolutionof the genetic code (JUKES 1983 ). I particularly liked hisshowing how, in an orderly sequential way, mutation pressurein the codon and anti-codon could produce the unexpected codesin bacteria and mitochondria (JUKES 1985 ). He also developeda widely used correction for multiple undetected changes inevolutionary base substitutions (JUKES and CANTOR 1969 ).

Kimura became a crusading advocate for the neutral theory andspent the rest of his life on the subject. In one paper afteranother, he offered further, increasingly convincing evidence.He also developed a solid mathematical theory, much of it carriedover from his own earlier work, which turned out to be remarkablywell preadapted for use in molecular evolution. His book TheNeutral Theory of Molecular Evolution (KIMURA 1983 ) becamea landmark. The jury is still out as to the full extent of randomchanges in determining the course of molecular evolution, butthe neutral theory has formed a basis for phylogenetic reconstructionand the molecular clock; it has also become the null hypothesisfor numerous selection experiments. Kimura died in 1994 (CROW1995 ).

If we did not know how nuclear reactions occurred, we would have thought something like this:

Amazing, isn't it! Even with best minds of men combined together, we would not know how a burst of energy would come out in such a spectacular, heavenly way! Definitely, this must be the work of the divine intelligent force that drives our universe!

Well, we know how and why nuclear reactions occur. Very simple in theory, and perfectly natural in the universe. NO SUPERNATURAL FORCE INVOLVED. Nobody would ever say nuclear reactions in the stars/universe as the work of the intelligent creator.

Similarly, if we knew ALL the potential of nature, we would have simply explained away "life" as simply another natural phenomenon... like death. Until then, this farce debate of this supernatural "intelligent creator" continues...

>>Maybe in your world, but that's not how natural selection works. Sorry.

Ahh, now we get to the root of the matter. You have accepted this dogma, and view this unreality as reality. You have FAITH in something which is unreal. Nature does not select -- nature RESPONDS to the environment. That is scientific reality, something which the Darwinists cannot accept.

>>The only desired end is surviving to reproduce succesfully.

There you go again.. LOL. A bacteria desires to reproduce? LOL, prove it scientificially. You can't. The only thing you can prove is that a bacteria reproduces itself, not that it actually has an emotional or intellectual will to do so. But, see with the dogma of darwinism, one doesn't have too -- all one has to do is blindly accept this..

>>You can call it "Dorothy" for all I care, the underlying process remains the same.

The forces of nature remain the same this is true. But the reason changes with the words used. nature does not select squat -- it merely reacts to forces. But that thought is an anathama to the faith of Darwinism.

Ahh, now we get to the root of the matter. You have accepted this dogma, and view this unreality as reality.

No, I've seen the evidence and understand how the process works. You're trying to misrepresent natural selection and that doesn't fly. Sorry.

Nature does not select -- nature RESPONDS to the environment.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. You seem to have got the rudiments of evolution under your belt: species evolve in response to environmental pressures in order to fit specific niches. And no, it isn't a process directed by an intelligence. That's what I'm saying and it also seems to be what you're saying, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

A bacteria desires to reproduce?

A bacteria doesn't desire anything. A bacteria simply reproduces. Bacteria that don't reproduce don't pass on their genetic information to subsequent generations. In that sense, natural selection favors genes that help bacteria survive and reproduce. But it isn't a question of volition in any direct sense.

But, see with the dogma of darwinism, one doesn't have too -- all one has to do is blindly accept this.

Huh? Who says a bacterium wants to do anything? What are you talking about? When I said passing on genes was the "desired end," I wasn't speaking literally. That's just what natural selection does -- it dictates that the most fit genotypes survive and that the trend is therefore towards increasing fitness within a given environment.

But the reason changes with the words used. nature does not select squat -- it merely reacts to forces. But that thought is an anathama to the faith of Darwinism.

Again I have no idea what you're talking about. Who says "nature" is a conscious selector? Either you're not expressing yourself coherently or you don't know what you're talking about.

To my layman's eye, I don't see any major issues that I disagree with until the 5th point, and even then my misgivings are limited to the failure to take into account flaws such as imperfect replication and endogenous retroviruses. But when you rephrased it for point 6, you added that 'information requires a sender (a source of intelligence)'. I will have to ask for empirical data that precludes non-intelligent changes, such as the flaws mentioned above.

For point 7, I will continue to have reservations until you back up the claim that intelligence is a requirement with empirical proof to that effect. I would like to counter that even a random array is information, even if it is meaningless. Further, I fail to see how a requirement of intelligence to discover and understand information is proof that intelligence was required to form that information in the first place.

Finally, since you are implying that information can come from an intelligent source but not from an unintelligent one, then I would ask that you define the point of separation that divides intelligent from non-intelligent. That should not be hard for you to do if you can empirically quantify the minimum intelligence required by your premise to create information.

Now that I've said all that, I would just like to acknowledge that this indeed does fulfill your initial claim that it is a challenge to evolution. However, I contend that whether you are right or not it is not a threat to ID, since DNA could have just as easily been designed to work as it does whether we think information requires an intelligent source or not. Or indeed, our mere mortal definition of 'intelligence' need not even apply to the designer.

>> When I said passing on genes was the "desired end," I wasn't speaking literally.

Then maybe you should change the words you use, because they can only be taken literally.

>>That's just what natural selection does -- it dictates

No, natural selection is an oxymoron.. Nature selects nothing, nor does it dictate in the propers sense of the word.

>Again I have no idea what you're talking about. Who says "nature" is a conscious selector?

Your words do. "Natural Selection" literally means a selection, which requires volition, is made naturally. You don't have an idea because you refuse to look outside the box of Darwinism.

The proper words are more likely to be "effects of the forces of nature on life" rather than "natural selection". There is no small difference. "Effects of nature" describes how nature, pressures, etc, effect life. "Natural Selection" describes how evolution determines the end results. If you think this is a small difference, you aren't grounded in reality. But that's ok, many darwinists aren't.

>>Either you're not expressing yourself coherently or you don't know what you're talking about

Or you are willfully ignorant and have a faith in the dogma of darwinism -- and a very closed mind.

You obviously have not bothered to read anything about ID except in the MSM. Do yourself a favor, and read up on it...and there is plenty.

I could tell you the same thing regarding evolution.

You appear to be typical of the opponents, you claim to know without having read anything serious.

When you write something serious, I'll read it. Now please tell me, what kinds of research have IDers conducted lately? How many scientists are there in the field doing groundbreaking ID experiments?

Thanks, I enjoyed reading your last post.

I don't claim to be an expert either, but I do have some schooling in areas that touch on this (computer engineering,genetic algorithms).

As for your response to my 6th point (coded info cannot arise from random chance, requires intelligence), I would like to point out that that is exactly the premise behind SETI looking for any sign of intelligent life in the universe, sifting through the background (random) noise looking for any kind of pattern signal, because that would indicate intelligent life. I don't know if I can prove a negative, but (LOL) you can feel free to prove a positive here and give me an example of some kind of self-creating information system that arises out of randomness without an intelligence behind it (although I don't know how you can know there isn't an intelligence behind it). It's actually the same problem we're dealing with here: you see DNA coding and say there's nothing behind it, I say it's evidence of an intelligent designer.

I guess I don't necessarily have a problem that people are not convinced about the ID theory, despite the evidence I see that can support such a theory, but I think it's intellectual laziness (not on your part but the original authors') to call a theory dumb when the basic premise of the theory he believes in is that non-life gave way to life, despite the fact there is no conclusive way to prove that either. I also (not to go too far off) think it is interesting that in two hundred years the great scientists we look back on saw an ordered hand of God in the universe because of the laws of physics they saw, what they observed in the stellar motions, etc, and now somehow to be a credible mainstream scientist today you can't believe that and keep your job.

Finally I did want to mention that to your point on a "even a random array is information", I would have to disagree. I would state that a random array is data, or facts, but to say something is information requires something more than just being data. You cannot get anything more out of the random array, it has no information to convey, there is no message or instructions there.

Now whether or not you can look at something and determine there is information there is another matter, right? Look at all the years of medicine that the human body had so many "vestigial organs", leftovers that were really non-functional, until we discovered the appendix was part of the immune system, etc. we had the data/facts right in front of us, a physical organ, but we were not able to put the organ into the proper context, thus we did not think it had any useful purpose.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.