Random (?) Thoughts on Intelligent Design & Evolution by Bill DiPuccio, Ph.D. Preface: Call me the reluctant critic. For I find myself of two minds on this issue. On the one hand, I agree philosophically and theologically with the basic premise of Intelligent Design (ID). On the other hand, I believe that it is not, nor can it ever be, a scientific theory. The strength of ID lies in the philosophical inferences it draws from science, probability, and information theory, rather than the scientific predictions it attempts to make. Design is related to order, like cause is related to effect. It is intuitively seized upon once we are confronted with a complex system that is beyond probable natural cause. But, as I show below, it is not the prerogative of science to draw such conclusions when they take us beyond the realm of natural causation. Science may provide the evidence and point the way, but like Moses it cannot cross into the Promised Land! “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution” (www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1136). There are a number of different forms of ID. Even young earth creationists are now using this moniker. By ID, I am referring to proponents of Intelligent Design represented pre-eminently by the Discovery Institute (Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Luskin, etc.) and IDEA Center (www.discovery.org/csc/, www.ideacenter.org/about/history.php). This group embodies the most developed and sophisticated form of ID. Unlike those who espouse scientific creationism, these proponents of ID do not use the Bible as a science text, or dispute the age of the earth, or deny the possibility that at least some organisms evolved from lower forms of life via neo-Darwinian pathways. 1. Science is a tool used to investigate the natural world and how humans interact with it. Its measurements and descriptive power are limited to matter and energy. It is not a worldview (e.g., scientism). It cannot determine ultimate meaning and purpose (cosmic or existential), the source of order and design in the universe, or the origin of the human soul. In short, science cannot investigate causes that originate outside of the matter/energy matrix (methodological naturalism). 2. Consequently, neither the ID hypothesis of an intelligent cause, nor divine intervention (i.e., miracles) in the natural, causal order, can be proven by scientific methods. This does not mean that they are impossible or untrue, they are simply outside the scope of science. Both claims can be falsified if it can shown that their supporting evidence is the probable result of natural phenomena. But the converse is not true. If science is unable to find a probable natural cause, it cannot demonstrate or conclude upon causes outside of the matter/energy matrix because it has no way to test such claims. In this circumstance, pleading ignorance is the better part of knowledge (see #9). 3. From a religious and philosophical standpoint, virtually all theists believe in a form of intelligent design, i.e., the order we see in nature is ultimately the product of mind rather than a random, purposeless, and undirected concurrence of matter and energy. Most theists would also agree that the development of life (evolution) has a purpose and has been planned and/or guided by divine causation, though not necessarily through miraculous intervention. While the body of man may have originated through natural causes, the human soul is a spiritual entity fashioned directly by God. Thus a scientific explanation of physical causes does not negate philosophical or theological beliefs, just as an understanding of the brain does not disprove the existence of mind. 4. Intervention in the natural order and/or abrupt appearance of life forms in the fossil record does not necessarily enhance intelligent design in creation though it probably makes it easier to detect. Suppose you purchase two software packages that perform the same function. The first grows in complexity and efficiency by periodic updates in which new information is rapidly downloaded and incorporated. The second also grows in complexity and efficiency, but without such “interventions” because it is capable of writing new code and learns from the demands placed upon it. Needless to say, the second program shows a much higher level of design intelligence than the first program. Yet both programs are the product of sophisticated engineering. Accordingly, the notion of design in creation does not necessitate intervention, but rather includes an entire range of possible scenarios in terms of natural history (see #6). 5. The claims of leading ID proponents that the “abrupt appearance” (a highly elastic term when measured in geological time!) of life forms in the fossil record is better explained by a rapid (miraculous?) infusion of

6.

7.

8.

9.

complex, specified, genetic information into the biosphere, may be true, but it is not testable by science because it hypothesizes a cause outside the matter/energy matrix. Even some proposed causes that lie within the matter/energy matrix may not be testable. For example, “panspermia” maintains that life on earth was seeded by organisms that arrived on meteors or comets, or by aliens who visited our planet. Alternately, some quantum physicists suggest that there are an infinite number of parallel worlds where all possibilities are actualized. Perhaps the genetic information crossed over from a parallel world where the missing transitional species had evolved! The ability of ID to predict abrupt appearances of life forms and irreducibly complex organs is not proof of its veracity. The panspermia and quantum hypotheses make the same predictions. Without a time machine, none of these ideas can be tested by science. Similar ambiguities attend other ID predictions which seem to assume the designer has nearly unlimited power and knowledge. These predictions would look very different if we were to suppose that the designer has limited intelligence and experience in fashioning organisms. For example, ID predicts that genetic material should contain very little “junk DNA” (non-coding regions that do not produce proteins) since intelligent agents typically create functional things. But if the designer is merely conducting experiments, we might just as well have predicted that such tinkering would result in a store of “junk DNA” (which there is, but functionality has been discovered for some of it). What is the utility of a hypothesis that is so amorphous, it can predict contradictory results? No evidence can be adduced that would count against it. In order to narrow the range of predictions, ID would have to identify or characterize the designer. But this, as ID proponents admit, is impossible because it is beyond the scope of science (see #10). From the standpoint of science, ID arguments falter on other grounds as well. First, they are fallacies of hasty generalization (sometimes called hasty induction). Proponents of ID and Neo-Darwinism both acknowledge that our understanding of life at the cellular, genetic, and biochemical level is still very incomplete. Consequently, at this point we cannot rule out the possibility of natural causality to explain abrupt appearances and complex forms which appear irreducible (indeed, evolutionists claim that progress has already been made in this area). The ID hypothesis is repeating an oft made mistake of the past by appealing to a kind of “God of the gaps” to fill the holes in our understanding. Second, ID has constructed a straw man by casting all evolutionary biology in an atheistic mold. According to the National Academy of Sciences, to say that evolution is an undirected or random process does not necessarily exclude a metaphysical force or agency behind nature (i.e., beyond the scope of natural science). For many biologists it merely excludes directed organization by predictable and verifiable natural forces. Science cannot and should not make dogmatic assertions about religion or the role of God in natural history. When pressed on questions of historical intervention (i.e., how and when), ID proponents claim that their theory is not necessarily interventionst in nature and that there is insufficient data to answer such questions. Yet they will not grant evolutionists the same disadvantage (i.e., scarcity of data). They also switch ground by retreating to a philosophical explanation. Namely, ID is making epistemological claims about design detection, not ontological claims about history (Dembski). But questions of “how and when” are precisely the kind of inquiry that science is supposed to make. ID proponents even allow that design may be “front loaded” and unfolds over time without intervention at all. This would seem to support the position of evolutionists. But ID contends that even if we could map the natural evolutionary pathways of irreducibly complex systems (e.g., flagellum) or the chemical origin of life, the mathematical probabilities of such systems developing by non-purposive mechanisms is virtually impossible. Thus the recurrence of complex, specified information in nature argues for design rather than a totally undirected process. This is certainly ID’s strongest argument and has considerable merit in my opinion. But it belongs properly to philosophy rather than science, where it would have little, if any, direct impact on methods and research. In order for ID to demonstrate its claims, it must first falsify the null hypothesis (i.e., natural causation) by showing that living systems could not be the product of undirected natural causes. Probability studies by Dembski claim to have done just that. However, if the possibility of strictly natural causation has been exhausted (i.e., proven false or inadequate), then the task of science has ended and it must plead ignorance. For once the limit of scientific inquiry is reached, we can only infer philosophically on causes that lie outside of the matter/energy matrix. Such inferences may be true, but they are not testable using the methods of science. This moment has already arrived for cosmology (and perhaps quantum string theory) which cannot explain the origin of the universe (i.e., the singularity) or its cause “prior” to the Big Bang. When it comes to

the question of origins, we must be willing to accept the possibility that science may never be able to determine what really happened. 10. By hypothesizing a designer, ID has taken science across a dangerous threshold. This crossing has unintended, deleterious consequences for both science and religion. Though ID claims that identifying or characterizing the designer is beyond the scope of science, it is a common practice in science to build a description of an unobservable cause based on its observed effects. In fact many of the causes in science (e.g., subatomic particles) have never been directly observed. Consequently, once we posit a designer we must press forward, using all available data, to describe this cause. If the designer is supernatural, science is now tasked with the job of describing those attributes of God (or god[s]) that can be ascertained through natural observation (e.g., see #6). What would this god look like? Would it correspond to the god of Christianity, Hinduism, NeoPaganism, etc.? Would such correspondence lend credence to a particular religion? These are deep waters! By embracing ID, science will become inextricably entangled with religion, thus creating a new form of scientism—the very thing which ID vehemently opposes. Limiting the scope of science to natural causation protects the integrity of both science and religion. 11. My conclusions are not an unqualified endorsement of evolution. As a meta-theory of universal life, it is still relatively young (150 years old). Despite its impressive stature, the history of science has shown us that another paradigm could radically alter or even displace it entirely. Serious questions still remain regarding the chemical origin of life, the abrupt appearance of some life forms, and the specific evolution of cellular systems and phenotypes. Without a detailed, biochemical, genetic, and micro-biological description of these evolutionary processes, the theory cannot be regarded as complete, final, or unassailable. It merely represents our best explanation, at present, of the origin of life. Consequently, any dogmatism, especially in the classroom, regarding evolution must be disallowed. A balanced treatment should include serious consideration of these deficiencies (which may be resolved by further research) and open-mindedness to the possibility that it may not be the final paradigm. To convey finality, undermines the scientific principle of continuous advancement through self-criticism. Postscript: Is evolution compatible with divine creation? How do we reconcile the Darwinian mechanism of random mutations with the belief that God has somehow guided the process of evolution to a purposeful end, viz., the creation of human life? Evolutionists who categorically proclaim that evolution has no purpose or teleology are not making scientific statements, but philosophizing. That such declarations are allowed to pass for science, reveals a double standard. For not only are they untestable, but they assume we posses a god-like, omniscient perspective of the universe. Unfortunately, humility is in short supply in some quarters of the scientific community. The reality is, our knowledge is not only finite, but infinitesimal. Belief in ultimate purpose comes primarily from divine revelation and conscience, which is supported by the order we observe in the natural world. Random phenomena and ultimate purpose can and do co-exist. Let us suppose I hand you a game die and ask you to graph a scatter plot of each roll. The range of possibilities is already limited by the nature of the die itself. Since it has 6 faces, the numbers on the Y axis of your graph could only extend from 1-6. In this case, randomness does not entail an infinite number of possible outcomes. After 25 roles you begin to suspect a bias for the number 3. After a thousand rolls, the bias is unmistakable. You would conclude from the scatter plot that the die was “loaded” and the outcome of the experiment was predetermined. Yet, each throw of the die was a random event insofar as the number could not be predicted with certainty. We live in a “loaded” universe! God has so ordered and fine-tuned the cosmos to produce and sustain human life (anthropic principle). He has limited the range of possible outcomes, yet has not predestined each event. Since He has loaded the die, it is not necessary to intervene in this process in order to insure its outcome. Such interventions are entirely possible, of course, and even necessary in endowing man with a spiritual nature. But our biological life may have sprung wholly from the dust of the earth by His nascent design.

DiPuccio’s Corrected

No Known Natural Cause CONCLUSION OF SCIENCE

Dembki’s Filter (top) recognizes three sources of causation: Physical Laws, Chance, and Design. Structures with a high probability of natural occurrence are likely the result of physical laws (e.g., crystals). Complex structures with a very small probability of natural occurrence are likely the result of intentional design (e.g., human artifacts). The corrected filter (bottom) clearly separates the conclusion of science from those of philosophy and theology when applied to the question of ultimate origins. Science cannot hypothesize a cause that originates outside of the matter/energy matrix. This matrix includes natural forces, human agency, and even extra-terrestrial life.