|
|
|
The
bacterial flagellum is the logo of the ID movement due to the complexity of its
structure
|
Intelligent
Design (ID) is the assertion that the universe and living things show signs of
having been designed by an intelligent agent. This article provides a general
discussion of ID and its relation to science and religion.
The
Confirmation Bias
ID
seems very much to support the idea of a creator; a superintellect who
masterminded the whole universe. Strictly speaking, however, ID does not make
any claims as to the attributes of the intelligent designer; identifying the
intelligent designer as God appears to be a natural conclusion. Therefore, some
religious people find a lure in the ID theory as it confirms their religious
beliefs and counters the purely materialistic and naturalistic worldviews that
either deny the existence of the Creator, or marginalize Him by making Him
equivalent to nature or even subservient to the laws of nature.
Because
of this, religious people may fall trap to the confirmation bias while
evaluating ID. The confirmation bias is the tendency of humans to pay attention
to, emphasize, and at many times overemphasize the evidence that confirms
one’s own preexisting ideas. At the same time, it is the tendency to
de-emphasize, discard, or dismiss as unauthentic any evidence that disconfirms
or refutes one’s preexisting beliefs and assumptions. Despite its potential,
ID should be analyzed as objectively as possible lest one would only be
affirming what he or she already believes in. We should strive to go beyond our
biases while assessing the merits and demerits of ID. By doing so, we preserve
the integrity of both religion and science.
What
Is ID?
ID,
according to leading ID theorist William Dembski1,
is committed to an ontological claim and an epistemological claim2.
The ontological claim is that the universe shows signs of design, which is
fundamentally distinct from chance and necessity3.
The epistemological claim is that design can be observed and detected4.
ID is a type of statistical inference where a hypothesis is rejected if the
outcome falls within a region in the space of possible outcomes that has a very
small probability given the hypothesis under investigation5.
The outcome here may, for instance, be a biological organ, structure, or
mechanism. The hypothesis is a scientific combination of chance and necessity
that explains the outcome. By “very small probability” the ID researchers
refer to a specific value of probability that takes the whole probabilistic
resources of the universe into account. Dembski calls this value the
“universal probability bound” and calculates it to be 1 in 10150. (That is,
the universal probability bound is equal to one divided by one followed by 150
zeros--an extremely small number.6)
In
other words, if the estimated probability of a biological structure emerging
according to the Darwinian theory of evolution7
is below the universal probability bound, then the organ is said to be designed
because even if the whole probabilistic resources of the universe collaborate
together to give rise to the structure, it is still highly unlikely to come to
existence as determined by the Darwinian scenario.
Science
and the Types of Naturalism
|
|
|
Metaphysical
naturalism adopts the belief that nature is the ultimate reality
|
For
the sake of this discussion, naturalism8
can be classified into two types: metaphysical and methodological. Metaphysical
(or ontological or anti-teleological) naturalism asserts that there is nothing
in the universe but chance and necessity. In this worldview, science relies on
chance and necessity only, because nature itself constitutes a self-contained
reality that exists, subsists, and operates solely on the basis of deterministic
and non-deterministic laws. Methodological (or pragmatic) naturalism, on the
other hand, “pretends” that there is nothing but chance and necessity, for
the purpose of advancing science and our understanding of nature in a coherent
and systematic way9.
It is clear that metaphysical naturalism ensues when one adopts methodological
naturalism in addition to the belief that nature is the ultimate reality, and
that science can explain everything. But can it?
Science
does have its metaphysics and its own assumptions and beliefs that are taken for
granted. These beliefs, such as the belief in the uniformity of nature, the
comprehensibility of the universe, and causality, are very reasonable but they
cannot be “proved” in a strict sense. Many scientists look down on religion,
because religion involves belief, not realizing that they themselves have their
own biases and beliefs. This, of course, does not mean that science is a mere
subjective project as claimed by some postmodernists, or that all beliefs are
equally plausible.
A
quick glance at how scientific theories are confirmed reveals that science is
far from providing absolute certainty. Unfortunately, there are two extremes:
one adopting science as the only means of discovering the truth, and another,
aware of the shortcomings of the scientific methodology, denigrating science as
an endeavor where reality plays a little role, if any, in the construction of
scientific knowledge. I adopt the middle position that recognizes the
limitations of science but, at the same time, acknowledges the utmost importance
of science as a superb source of knowledge about ourselves and our world10.
Is
ID a Part of Science?
Many scientists
look down on religion, because religion involves belief, not realizing
that they themselves have their own biases and beliefs |
|
ID
operates somewhere near the boundaries of science, and it can play an important
role that is discussed below. ID cannot be considered a part of science proper,
however. It lacks the features that make it an acceptable scientific theory
including the ability to make predictions to be verified by experiment. For, if
the conclusion is that there is an intelligent designer without knowing anything
about his attributes and capabilities, how can we make testable predictions from
that conclusion?
Though
ID is grounded in science, its conclusion is very special and contradicts the
methodological naturalism on which science is based. Science uses necessity,
chance, or a combination of both to explain different phenomena. It appears that
methodological naturalism is the best way of doing science. Science aims at
providing explanations for the phenomena present in the universe. To many
religious people, God is the Creator. This provides an “ultimate”
explanation to everything. But since this belief explains everything, it does
not help the scientific process. I can point at any natural system and say
wholeheartedly that this is the work of God. But what can we do afterwards? It
is methodological naturalism that allows us to explain a phenomenon in such a
way that it can be utilized, hopefully for the benefit of humankind and to
discharge the obligations of vicegerency11.
Having
said so, one must also emphasize that methodological naturalism is not without
problems. When combined with a belief in the unlimited explanatory power of
science, it degenerates into metaphysical naturalism masqueraded as science.
This is manifest, for example, in the “science” of evolutionary psychology
where all human good deeds are regarded as mere strategies for facilitating
survival, and morality as an “adaptation” to further our reproductive ends12.
The movement of ID is clearly motivated by such insults to our moral
sensibilities, and by the disciplines that gain scientific recognition by
demonstrating their unfettered commitment to metaphysical naturalism.
Powers
(and Perils) of ID
ID can be a
motivator for scientists to think outside the box and try to propose
alternative hypotheses |
|
If
ID is not part of science proper, this does not mean that it is useless. ID can
provide a type of assessment of whether or not a proposed scientific explanation
is adequate to explain a phenomenon. That is, ID is an excellent paradigm to
define the plausibility of a set (or superset) of existing hypotheses.
Objectively
speaking, if ID proves that the probability of a proposed explanation is below
the universal probability bound, the best that can be said is that science, till
now, cannot explain the phenomenon, assuming of course that the calculation is
correct. If one trusts the calculation and thinks that it covers a whole set of
hypotheses, then the conclusion may be that no scientific theory would be able
to account for the observed phenomenon. But one can also make the claims that:
(a) the known mechanisms are operating in unknown ways, or (b) unknown
mechanisms may be operative. This type of debate, unless there is a clear
miscalculation, is often subjective and dependent on one’s views on the scope
of scientific inquiry and investigation. Put simply, ID can expose the
inadequacy of a current explanation without making further judgments13.
Based on one’s confidence in the ID calculation and one’s metaphysical
framework, one can then proceed to form his or her metascientific conclusion.
Two
arguments can be made. The first is that ID is an impediment to science as it
moves from the deficiency of the current hypotheses to a statement that we will
never succeed in explaining the phenomenon scientifically. This can be countered
by another argument that ID, by showing the inadequateness of current
explanations, may help awaken the scientists from their intellectual slumber,
something that often takes place given the inertia of the scientific culture
(and other cultures). ID can be a motivator for scientists to think outside the
box and try to propose alternative hypotheses. It is extremely unlikely that all
the scientists will take an ID result and stop hunting for naturalistic
explanations. The point is that ID may harm science, but ignoring it may also
harm science. After all, everything has its share of merits and demerits.
Religion
and Science: A Final Word
I
completely agree with the assertion of ID that the universe shows signs of
design. Nevertheless, I have the concern that ID may be a self-defeating
exercise. By insisting that the discernment of the existence of an intelligent
designer is a clear-cut part of science, ID runs the risk of perpetuating the
belief that science is the sole tool for searching for the truth, and that if
one does not make scientific arguments, then his or her case is null and void.
Though myself being a firm believer in science and the competence of the human
intellect, I think the domain of science, albeit huge, is limited. Reason,
revelation, experimentation, and intuition should form together the foundations
of our knowledge. And, ultimately, it is revelation that provides answers to the
really fundamental questions.
This
article reflects solely the opinion of the author.
Ahmed
K. Sultan’s article was written as a critique of Intelligent Design (ID) based
on his readings of pro-ID articles posted on IslamOnline.net. Sultan’s article
again received its own dose of responses. Please feel free to send your own comments to: ScienceTech@islam-online.net.
To read the e-mails, please
click here
**
Ahmed
K. Sultan Salem is a PhD student in the Space,
Telecommunications, and Radioscience Laboratory (STARLab) at Stanford
University. Your
emails to will be forwarded to him by contacting the editor at: ScienceTech@islam-online.net.
1-
For the ideas and positions of the ID movement, I have mainly relied on
Dembski’s writings. Books include: The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance
through Small Probabilities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998; Science
and Evidence for Design in the Universe, Proceedings of the Wethersfield
Institute, vol. 9 (coauthored with Michael J. Behe and Stephen C. Meyer), San
Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000; No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity
Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, Lanham, Md.: Rowman &
Littlefield, 2002; The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions
about Intelligent Design, Downer’s Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Articles include: In Defense of Intelligent Design; Reflections on
Human Origins; Making the Task of Theodicy Impossible? Intelligent Design
and the Problem of Evil; etc. Dembski’s articles are available from
http://www.designinference.com/
2-
In philosophy, ontology is the study of being or existence, while epistemology
is the study of the sources and scope of knowledge.
3-
“Necessity” refers to deterministic laws.
4-
In the exact words of Dembski from Making the Task of Theodicy Impossible?
(see endnote 1), “[ID] is committed to an ontological claim and an
epistemological claim. The ontological claim: Material mechanisms are
incomplete---they are not coextensive with secondary causes. The epistemological
claim: Design is empirically detectable.”
5-
Statistical hypothesis testing is a procedure designed to confirm or disconfirm
a set of hypotheses that are claimed to explain a certain phenomenon or a set of
observations.
6-
Given the age of the universe, the quantum requirement that the smallest
possible time step is the Planck time (approximately 5.391e-44 seconds), and the
number of particles in the universe, Dembski argues that the value of 1 in 10150
is a reasonable, and in fact highly conservative, universal probability bound.
7-
In order to keep the focus on ID, I avoid any discussion of the Darwinian theory
of evolution in this article.
8-
Naturalism is a theory that denies that an event or object has a supernatural
significance; specifically it is the doctrine that scientific laws are
adequate to account for all phenomena.
9-
Note that methodological
naturalism does not imply that science has nothing to say about the
supernatural. Imagine religion X that is based on a belief in a supernatural
being who created the whole universe 30,000 years ago and mentioned this fact in
no unequivocal terms to people in a revealed book. Accumulated scientific
findings show that the text of religion X is simply not true though they do not
at all falsify the existence of the creator. If the issue is not mentioned in
the book of religion X clearly, i.e., it is open to a number of interpretations
due to linguistic ambiguities, then it is the interpretation that the universe
was created 30,000 years ago that is proven false. Other interpretations may
survive the scientific attempts at falsification and require further
investigation to ascertain their validity.
10-
One example of a domain which I do not think science will completely solve its
mysteries is that of "free will"---our ability to choose. Since free
will means that humans have the capacity to transcend randomness, and genetic,
psychological, and environmental determinism, science, with its insistence on
the combination of chance and necessity, is unqualified to fully explain it. In
fact, metaphysical naturalists, when they take their beliefs to their logical
conclusion, consider that "free will" is a mere illusion, a fantasy
that humans have created in order to survive the evolutionary struggle.
11-
According to the Quranic account, God created Adam as a vicegerent on earth.
Humans are supposed to conduct the affairs of the planet following a
comprehensive moral code that defines their relationship vis-à-vis Allah,
fellow humans, and the environment.
12-
Dembski dedicates a section titled “Morality, Altruism, and Goodness” in his
article Reflections on Human Origins (see endnote 1) to critically
discuss evolutionary ethics and evolutionary psychology. As mentioned in endnote
5, I avoid going into the details of the evolutionary theory for the sake of
keeping the focus on ID. For more information about evolutionary psychology,
refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology
13-
That is the problem with the name “intelligent design.” I think the
conclusion of the ID calculation should stop at showing the defect of an
explanation.
|
