The Fallacies of Intelligent Design Theory
Scientists' approach to problem solving requires the gathering of good evidence and an impartial analysis of the consequences of such evidence. Hypotheses about spirits, souls, magical powers, astrology, psychic powers, ESP, etc., have been examined many times by science. These hypotheses have been rejected over and over, not because of philosophical bias, but because there was no empirical evidence whatsoever to support them. Standard scientific practice is to ask whether there are alternative explanations that will explain the same phenomena and to be concerned with examining the methods used to gather data. Critical thinking, not closed-minded thinking, is necessary. For example, in a 1999 study that claimed to show a positive association between church attendance and health, scientific reviewers found it flawed by failure to control for the fact that people with reduced capacity (and poorer health) were less likely to attend church and be counted.
A problem for ID is that the organisms we see in nature show evidence of either bad design or sub-optimal design. For example, the necessity for humans to get around on their hind legs causes many problems, from knee and ankle difficulties to lower back pain to hemorrhoids. Only a sadist would design creatures with so much built-in obsolescence. We get sick, we go bald, we get fat, we lose our visual acuity, our teeth fall out, our bones become brittle, our skins sag, our sexual performance fades, our brains shrink, our arteries clog, our senses dull, and our memory becomes unreliable. The appearance of such poor design can be interpreted as evidence of a bungling, unintelligent trial-and-error evolutionary process that has resulted in sub-optimal anatomical structures. Clearly, such structures appear to be inconsistent with the designs of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good supernatural entity. ID advocates argue that perhaps we do not know the intentions of the designer. However, a secularist can equally respond that perhaps these things just evolved in a way we have not thought of yet. Why should the first be a good excuse and the second a bad excuse?
The Flawed Bases for Intelligent Design
The Biological Case
In 1996, creationist Michael Behe, a biochemist, came up with an argument against evolution that he termed "irreducible complexity." This concept asserts that biological systems exist that are too complex to have evolved from simpler forms. Irreducible complexity refers to those biological systems that are composed of several interacting parts, where removal of any one of the parts would cause the system to cease functioning. However, among its defects, the concept of irreducible complexity does not take into account the well-documented biological process of co-option, in which structures that have evolved for one use have become employed for a different use. One of the best-known examples is the evolution of the mammalian inner ear from reptilian jawbones. Such redundant biochemical complexity has been pointed out to exist in all the examples Behe has presented, demonstrating they were not irreducibly complex.
The Case from Information Theory
Based on modern information theory, mathematician and theologian William Dembski claims to have proven that the kind of information inherent in the universe cannot be generated by natural causes. His "proof" has been shown to be a common creationist misrepresentation of the second law of thermodynamics.
The Case Based on the "Anthropic Coincidences"
Physicists have collected a large number of examples in which the laws and constants of nature appear to be consistent with the view that they are fine-tuned for the production of life as we know it on earth. Theists have interpreted this as meaning that our universe shows signs of divine purpose, with humanity as that purpose. This argument fails to consider the possibilities of life forms very different from our own that could exist in a different universe with different physics. It also does not correctly calculate and interpret the related probabilities. Current cosmological theories suggest the existence of many universes besides our own. Though such possibilities cannot be empirically proved at this time, the inability to disprove them may be regarded as sufficient to refute the (strictly hypothetical) fine-tuning argument.
The Case Based on Big Bang Creation
Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has updated the old Islamic Kalam cosmological argument that the universe had a beginning and so must have been created. The big bang is taken as evidence of a beginning to our universe. However, as a theist, Craig claims that an uncreated entity can exist, namely god, who had no beginning. Physicists argue that there is no scientific basis to assume that the universe had a beginning. In fact, fundamental physics shows no preferred moment or direction of time. Thus, it follows that the universe need not have been created.
<NEXT>
The Fallacies of Intelligent Design Theory: Pages 1, (2), 3,
