 |
| El Nido, Palawan, Philippines |
“As Christians,” writes William
A. Dembski, “we know naturalism is false. Nature is not self-sufficient. …
Nonetheless neither theology nor philosophy can answer the evidential question
whether God’s interaction with the world is empirically detectable. To answer
this question we must look to science.” With this statement, Dembski seems to
summarize the whole enterprise of the Intelligent Design theory. Intelligent Design
(ID) refers to a research program that seeks evidence of design in nature. This
theory holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are
best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as
natural selection. It claims to have applied scientific methods to detect
design in irreducibly biological structures, the complex and specified
information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the
universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the
fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years
ago.[1]
With this, the theory distinguishes itself from creationism though some sectors
try to associate it with the said movement.
 |
| Calamianes, Palawan, Philippines |
The proponents of this
aforementioned theory want it to be considered as a scientific theory and
intend it as an alternative to the Darwinian evolution theory. Is Intelligent
Design a scientific theory or at least scientific in its method? The advocates
of this theory believe it so because according to them, it commonly follows the
four-step process of scientific method, namely: observations, hypothesis,
experiments, and conclusion.[2]
They claim that it begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce
complex and specified information (CSI). Then, the design theorists hypothesize
that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.
Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if
they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI
is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-
engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to
function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they
conclude that such structures were designed.
 |
| Buntod Sandbar, Masbate, Philippines |
However, this scientific claim
has been rebuffed by many scientists, including Kenneth Miller, a biologist and
a Catholic. Miller asserts that “in the final analysis, the biochemical
hypothesis of Intelligent Design fails not because the scientific community is
closed to it but rather for the most basic of reasons – because it is
overwhelmingly contradicted by the scientific evidence.”[3]
Miller cites that Michael Behe, another prominent proponent of ID, fails to
provide biochemical evidence for intelligent design. He also contradicts Behe’s
claim that irreducibly complex systems seem to be very difficult to form by
successive modifications because the natural selection can only choose among
systems that are already working. Thus according to the ID proponent, the
irreducibly complex biological systems pose a powerful challenge to Darwin’s theory.[4]
But Miller, in response to the ID proposition statement of Behe, denies this
and affirms instead that “evolution produces complex biochemical machines. The
blood clotting system is an example of evolution.” And adds further, “If Behe
wishes to suggest that the intricacies of nature, life, and the universe reveal
a world of meaning and purpose consistent with a divine intelligence, his point
is philosophical, not scientific.”[5]
In the same article, Miller discloses that he shares that same philosophy as
that of the ID proponents, but he vehemently refutes their scientific claim,
insisting that Behe’s point are not scientific but philosophical.
 |
| Bangui Beach, Ilocos Norte, Philippines |
In the same way, Robert Pennock disproves
the scientific assertion of the ID theory: “Science requires positive evidence
that biological complexity is intentionally designed.” And adds, “One cannot
detect an intelligent agent by the process of elimination he (Dembski)
suggests.”[6]
Dembski, in his ID position statement, asserts that “intelligence leaves behind
a characteristic trademark or signature- what I call ‘specified complexity’.”[7]
Dembski opines that undirected or mindless natural processes are not capable of
generating that specified complexity in organism. Pennock insists that Dembski could not
provide the positive evidence required by science since he could not show that
the genetic patterns are set in advance. In the same article, Pennock censures
the ID’s pretension as an alternative to the Darwinian evolution theory:
“Dembski’s hypothesis of design provides little that is testable. (But) science
requires a specific model that can be tested. Darwin followed the clues given
in nature to solve the mystery of origins.”[8]
And Pennock agnostically concludes that “one may retain religious faith in a
designer who transcends natural processes, but there is no way to dust for his
fingerprints.”[9]
ID pretends to be a science of
design detection, that is, how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent
cause for a purpose. Its main or ultimate aim then is to discover the presence
or existence of the intelligence cause of all these irreducibly complex systems
(in Behe’s term) or specified complexity (in Dembski’s term) in nature. But how
can they detect the presence of an intelligent and transcendental cause
empirically speaking? As Pennock has said earlier, science requires empirical
evidences. There is no other way to arrive at this conclusion but by jumping
with a philosophical proposition as Miller already noted. One of the ID’s
purposes is to challenge the naturalistic explanation of the origin of life and
of the universe. But I believe that science is not the proper forum to do this.
We can detect the loopholes of the arguments of naturalistic evolution, but we
cannot insist on them to accept the existence of a transcendental being for it
is beyond their scope. Science could never study anything beyond the empirical
reality since its scope is limited to it. It is the task of philosophy and
theology to answer what science could not due to its limited scope- the
questions about the ultimate causes of everything.
 |
| Cape Engaño, Cagayan, Philippines
|
Is Intelligent Design a creationism
masquerading as a scientific theory by using mathematical and scientific terms
and backed with scientific competence but employing philosophical and
theological arguments? The proponents of ID strongly deny that it is
creationism or creation science. Creation science is the attempt to provide
scientific proof for the account of God’s creation of the world that is
described in the Bible.[10]
I believe that ID is somewhat related to creationism or creation science since
it scientifically attempts to prove the existence of God as the intelligence
cause. But as I have stated earlier, it is impossible to prove the existence of
God using the same empirical methods used in the experimental sciences.
Experimental sciences could never have a transcendental being as its object of
investigation.
 |
| Malapascua Island, Cebu, Philippines |
Dembski, in one occasion, admits that
“Intelligent Design is a modest position theologically and
philosophically.” Does he admit that ID
is a scientific, philosophical, and theological theory all in one? Does it pretend to be a synthesis of all those
disciplines? But this enterprise is impossible since the three disciplines employ
different methods and with different scopes. Santiago Collado points out that
Giberson and Artigas already stressed that it would be impossible to
successfully tackle these three tasks all at once, that is, with the same
method.[11]
God could never be an object of inquiry in science. This pretension of the ID
proponents has defeated their own purpose. By pretending to be the synthesis of
all those different and distinct disciplines, the Intelligent Design theory has
suffered an identity crisis.
[1]
@www.intelligentdesign.org.
[2]
Ibid.
[3]
Kenneth Miller, “The Flaw in the Mousetrap: Intelligent design fails the
biochemistry test.”
[4]
Cf. Michael Behe, “The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity: Every living cell
contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines.”
[5]
Kenneth Miller, “The Flaw in the Mousetrap: Intelligent design fails the
biochemistry test.”
[6]
Robert Pennock, “Mystery Science Theater: The case of the secret agent.”
[7]
William A. Dembski, “Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences: Intelligence
leaves behind a characteristic signature.”
[8]
Robert Pennock, “Mystery Science Theater: The case of the secret agent.”
[9] Ibid.
[10] Cf. Encarta Dictionaries.
[11] Santiago Collado, “Teoría del Diseño Inteligente” in Philosophica:
Enciclopedia filosófica online.
No comments:
Post a Comment