Claim CI001:
Intelligent design theory is science.
Source:
Dembski, William A., 1998. The Design Inference. Cambridge University
Press.
Response:
- The terms used in design theory are not defined. "Design", in design
theory, has nothing to do with "design" as it is normally understood.
Design is defined in terms of an agent purposely arranging something,
but such a concept appears nowhere in the process of distinguishing
design in the sense of "intelligent design." Dembski defined design in
terms of what it is not (known regularity and chance), making
intelligent design an argument from
incredulity; he never said
what design is.
A solution to a problem must address the parameters of the problem, or
it is just irrelevant hand waving. Any theory about design must
somehow address the agent and purpose, or it is not really about
design. No intelligent design theorist has ever included agent or
purpose in any attempt at a scientific theory of design, and some
explicitly say they cannot be included (Dembski 2002, 313). Thus, even
if intelligent design theory were able to prove design, it would mean
practically nothing; it would certainly say nothing whatsoever about
design in the usual sense.
Irreducible complexity also fails as
science
because it, too,
is an argument from incredulity that has nothing to do with design.
- Intelligent design is subjective. Even in Dembski's mathematically
intricate formulation, the specification of his specified complexity
can be determined after the fact, making "specification" a subjective
concept. Dembski now talks of "apparent specified complexity"
versus "actual specified complexity," of which only the latter indicates
design. However, it is impossible to distinguish between the two in
principle (Elsberry n.d.).
- Intelligent design implies results that are contrary to common sense.
Spider webs apparently meet the standards of specified complexity,
which implies that spiders are intelligent. One could instead claim
that the complexity was designed into the spider and its abilities.
But if that claim is made, one might just as well claim that the
spider's designer was not intelligent but was intelligently designed,
or maybe it was the spider's designer's designer that was intelligent.
Thus, either spiders are intelligent, or intelligent design theory
reduces to a weak Deism where all design might have entered into the
universe only once at the beginning, or terms like "specified
complexity" have no useful definition.
- The intelligent design movement is not intended to be about science.
Phillip Johnson, who spearheaded and led the movement, said in so many
words that it is about religion and philosophy, not science (Belz
1996).
References:
Further Reading:
Elsberry, Wesley, 2000. The anti-evolutionists: William A. Dembski.
http://www.antievolution.org/people/dembski_wa/sc.html
Frank, Patrick, 2004. On the assumption of design. Theology and
Science 2(1): 109-130.
Pennock, Robert T., 2003. Creationism and intelligent design. Annual
Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 4: 143-163.
created 2001-2-18, modified 2005-4-15