Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology [Paperback]

 

 

Create your own review

According to Darwin and the theory of evolution, biological systems may look designed, but that design is illusory because there's a purely undirected process, namely natural selection acting on random mutations that can produce that appearance without there being any actual guidance or intelligence behind it.

The theory of Intelligent Design proposes in contrast that key features of living systems can be best explained by the activity of a designing intelligence, and that living systems look designed because they were designed. Prior to Darwin, British natural theology had also inferred design from biological features such as the eye, but because of the limits of scientific knowledge at that time, had not been able to establish that conclusion rigorously. This has now changed. Advances in biochemistry have revealed not only vastly increased complexity, but also a whole new level of organization to biology, and that is information. Dembski has developed a criterion, specified complexity, which can reliably distinguish information-rich structures from ones which exhibit only order. The questions then arise, what best accounts for structures exhibiting complex specified information, and does science currently have the tools to answer that question?

To begin with, I.D. advocates invoke a procedural rule that was important to the formulation of the historical sciences in the nineteenth century, which is that we should explain things by reference to known cause and effect processes. This rule, sometimes called uniformitarianism, is that our present knowledge of cause and effect should guide our inferences about the past. What we know from our uniform and repeated experience in the present is that, for example, only intelligence produces information-rich digital code. So the presence of digital code in DNA is strong evidence of a prior designing intelligence. This conclusion is based entirely on a standard canon of scientific method.

Nevertheless, the question of the design inference brings to light two opposing views of reality which contend to undergird science and its attempts to make sense of the natural world. Naturalism, the view that nature is a closed system and that what is basic is matter in mindless motion, is currently the default position of modern science and indeed in all of Western culture. At odds with naturalism is theism, the view that Logos, or Intelligence, is basic to reality. The former view allows only natural causes to be invoked in scientific explanations, not so much because of the so-called "limits of science", but because of the perceived limits of reality which preclude any other causes. Theism, on the other hand, allows for natural causes to be interwoven with intelligent causes in the natural world.

The difference between Darwinism and I.D. is that the former cannot even consider intelligent causes because of the restrictions placed upon it by naturalism. Intelligent Design, however, can consider either natural causes alone or in combination with intelligent causes, depending on where the evidence leads. It does not insist on intelligent causes before examining the evidence, but theism gives it a broader range of possibilities to consider. Thus much of the knowledge gained from evolutionary biology would still play an important part in a new paradigm of Intelligent Design; only its inflated claims to explanatory supremacy will be jettisoned. I.D. is only adding to science's conceptual toolbox, not taking away from it.

The invocation by critics, of methodological naturalism, the rule that science must restrict itself to natural explanations, presupposes naturalism and really is not helpful. Unless one dogmatically holds to those first principles, it becomes clear that rather than protecting scientific practice from anarchy, this rule arbitrarily closes off paths of investigation that could actually lead to the truth. Dumping methodological naturalism and adding the causal category of agency will not lead to appeals to magic and a loss of scientific rigor. Agency is a category we use all the time in other scientific disciplines, such as archeology and forensics.

Intelligent Design, then, though it has religious implications, is no more a religious theory than is the Big Bang theory, which also has philosophical and religious implications, but is clearly a scientific theory. Remember, the contrast that I.D. is drawing is not between natural and supernatural causes, but between natural and intelligent causes. The charge that I.D. invokes miracles also presupposes naturalism and a closed system of natural cause and effect into which intelligent causes are seen as a violation. I.D. would, however, see natural and intelligent causes working in harmony. Even so, however, the recognition of the effects of intelligence says nothing about how those effects were produced. The recognition of human agent causation certainly does not cause us to invoke a miracle.

Dembski argues that "logically, intelligent design is compatible with everything from utterly discontinuous creation (eg. God intervening at every conceivable point to create new species) to the most far-ranging evolution (eg. God seamlessly melding all organisms together into one great tree of life." However, it is incompatible with theistic evolution, which "takes the Darwinian picture of the world and baptizes it". According to theistic evolution, design is real, but not empirically detectable. It can be seen only through the eyes of faith. What makes I.D. revolutionary is its demonstration that design is actually empirically detectable.

For Dembski, the bottom line is this: from an evolutionary vantage, intelligence is a byproduct of purely blind, material processes; it is not something that is fundamental. It is an adaptation, a survival technique or mechanism, but not something that has any claim on reality. Intelligent Design turns that around and says that if there is good evidence of design in biology, then this design is from an unevolved intelligence. That means that intelligence is something basic to reality and should be basic to our understanding of science.

The implications of this are huge: "It was Darwin's expulsion of design from biology that made possible the triumph of naturalism in Western culture. So, too, it will be intelligent design's reinstatement of design within biology that will be the undoing of naturalism in Western culture."

Being impressed with the solid case that Dembski presented in Intelligent Design, I was a bit surprised to find such a low average rating. Of course, when I started to read some of the reviews, I realized why. These people are not reading the book carefully enough. How do I know this? Because the objections brought up in many of these reviews to Dembski's book receive clear answers in the book that are philosophically sound. Every objection brought forth in these reviews is already refuted by Dembski in the detailed arguments presented in this book. If you read actively, you will find it, and that is why this is an excellent book.

Dembski begins by devoting a lot of time to the distinctions of science and naturalism, and the equivocation with intelligent design and creationism. Ironically, the majority of objections raised against intelligent design say that ID is not science and intelligent design is creationism in disguise!

Dembski makes it clear that ID does not rely on any religious presuppositions (as creationism does), it is a theory of information and how to detect design, whether caused by a human or something else. It is basically the task of making an empirical observation that cannot be attributed to chance and law because it contains information. He points out that we make these inferences all the time. If I happen to come upon a romance novel with detailed information, I would naturally, and very reasonably, conclude that these words were designed by a writer. Similarly, Dembski argues, the rich information contained in DNA which is very complex and specified is more reasonably attributed to design. There are no religious presuppositions necessary for the conclusion that a romance novel was designed or that the information in DNA was designed! Let me make it clear I am not intending to argue this issue thoroughly here, I am just giving a brief description of some of the issues involved.

Let me make clear that this is just one example of intelligent design theory and its uses. Dembski (along with other scholars) also attribute design to complex machines in nature that cease to function with any single part missing because they argue that the mechanism of natural selection is insufficient to gradually produce this kind of machine. Once again, this is not intended as a defense of these arguments, only a brief summary for those interested.

A last distinction needs to be made between science and naturalism. Many people (including many who have reviewed) assume that science by definition excludes these intelligent causes because they may be unnatural. This is not science, this is methodological naturalism - the metaphysical *assumption* that all empirically observable phenomena must be naturally caused. This assumption rules out any explanation for origins except for atheistic ones as scientific. So it seems that rather than Dembski, many opponents of Intelligent Design instead are using circular reasoning. Even if Darwinism is insufficient to produce this information and these machines, it is considered the only "scientific" explanation thus it is still accepted, even if rationally insufficient. But this is "science" functioning as "naturalism" in disguise. Why should science be the handmaiden to naturalism? It needs to be clarified: this is a metaphysical assumption on the part of scientists that commits them to naturalism right away, whether they realize it or not.

How is this justified? Dembski argues (and I agree) that this is inadequate for science because science is not supposed to presuppose a worldview, it is supposed to be as objective as possible. That means not presupposing naturalism or theism, and including natural causes and intelligent causes (both of which we infer all the time). Scientific theories are almost always inferences to the best explanation, which intelligent design is. Dembski responds in detail to god-of-the-gaps objections to intelligent design, as well as many other objections in this book. For an even further treatment of the objections, take a look at The Design Revolution.

There is a lot of criticism towards Dembski's work as being unscientific and religiously motivated, but I think I have made it more clear that the reason for this is that the people making these accusations are committed to the notion of methodological naturalism within science, so they are the ones coming into science with a bias. Dembski's work is philosophically rigorous at times, and if one does not have training in philosophy at all then one will not understand his solutions to the objections being raised.

If you do not completely understand the arguments Dembski is making, do not assume that he is religiously motivated and philosophically unsound. I am not trying to offend anyone by making this statement (and I'm sorry if I have), it is just clear to me that when one makes an accusation against his book that is clearly refuted in the book, that person may lack a bit of understanding in the reading and may need to examine the issue more carefully.

Let the arguments speak for themselves, do not attack the arguer. I challenge anyone to give me one example of a religious presupposition that Intelligent Design relies upon to prove its case. You will not be able to find one. But feel free to email me if you do find an issue, or if you think I could help clarify something for you. burton00311@hotmail.com

Lastly, I just want to say, apart from defending Dembski, his distinctions are excellent in this book, and that is why I gave it 5 stars. He makes his points very clear and takes care of any possible objections when they need to be taken care of. This book comes highly recommended.

Here is what is wrong with the science vs religion debate. Science starts with the assumption that there is no God, that there is nothing except for the physical matter that we see and the laws that apply to them. It assumes that there is not and cannot be anything such as spirit (i.e. that our bodies house spirits) or God. Basically, science in this sense is a religion itself which is unfairly believing that physical laws are God, and are responsible for life on earth and the creation of planets, stars, and galaxies. Let me say that again. Science is a religion because it is a belief system, and it is a belief that there is no such thing as Spirit and no such thing as a Supreme Being or God (or Gods). Science then is not interested in discovering if the truth is that there really IS a God (or Gods) and Spirit. It is ONLY interested in trying to explain the Universe from a BIASED perspective that there is only physical matter and laws that we see around us with our physical eyes. It is as closed-minded as persons who adhere to a religion and assume it is correct without ever questioning the possibility that they could be incorrect. Open-minded persons are interested in the truth, and NEVER assume that something is or isn't true. Science is inherently flawed in that it only relies on physical evidence of things, and not Spiritual evidence. Writing about what exactly Spiritual evidence is would easily fill a book, but basically Spiritual evidence is revelation from God to man, as found in Holy Scripture. Scientists automatically reject that God exists and that therefore any person who claims to speak His words (a prophet) is a liar, or schizophrenic, or something. However, millions of people have discovered for themselves that there is a God and they are not a bunch of lying schizophrenic stupid people, as scientists would have us believe. They in fact have Spiritual evidence that He exists, which is revelation from God to them. Okay, I'll stop now but carefully consider what I said about Physical and Spiritual evidence of things, and the rejection by science of considering that anything other than that which is physical is possible.

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review

› See all 43 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

 

3.0 out of 5 stars I Can Do Better Than These Authors
Here is what is wrong with the science vs religion debate. Science starts with the assumption that there is no God, that there is nothing except for the physical matter that we... Read more

Published on May 5 2004

1.0 out of 5 stars ID Not Science
I'm sorry to break it to you guys, but anyone who thinks that this book is a sucessful exercise in expressing the intelligent design theory in scientific terms has been woefully... Read more

Published on April 2 2004 by Carter Fort

1.0 out of 5 stars Bad wine in both bottles
Bill Dembski is at it again. After his 1st "book" - an exposition of pseudomathematics and absurdity, he has produced another "book" this time on the same... Read more

Published on Feb 26 2004

1.0 out of 5 stars Dishonest
The author begins with biblical semiology (i.e., prophesy) and a defense of miracles (which already disqualifies the text as scientific), as well as a tendentious and loaded... Read more

Published on Feb 25 2004 by eupraxis

4.0 out of 5 stars Dembski's "Intelligent Design"
Dembski's treatment is less about the mechanism of a grand scale design by a supreme deity, and more abut the specification of signs that are discovered to hold intelligent... Read more

Published on Jan 11 2004 by Stephen P. Smith

1.0 out of 5 stars Same old, long ago refuted arguments
Intelligent Design generally, and Dembski's arguments in
particular amount to nothing more than Paley's argument
of design which is a logically falacious argument from... Read more

Published on Nov 14 2003 by Thomas D. Griffin

4.0 out of 5 stars Excellent introduction to ID theory
This excellent work should appeal to intelligent, educated, and open-minded individuals who are suspicious of the Darwinian apologists' "evolutionary logic," which... Read more

Published on Oct 13 2003

2.0 out of 5 stars A few comments
Having read Behe's other book I thought I'd try this one. However, the theory of ID promises much but delivers little. Read more

Published on July 10 2003 by magellan

5.0 out of 5 stars Design / Product of Mind
The universe is not made of so much of material objects as it is made of forces acting and reacting in relationship to one another. Read more

Published on July 20 2002 by Paul G. Kimes

5.0 out of 5 stars Epiphanous experience, unintelligent reviewer
Dembski is very careful to limit his reasoning to only the topic on hand. This make sthe book very clear, although he's not as light (?) and enjoyable a read as Behe. Read more

Published on May 25 2002 by Leon Brooks

Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

› See all 43 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

Search Listmania!