“The Positive Case For Design”, and the Logical Flaws Therein
Some of you may be familiar with a paper from The Discovery Institute ’s Casey Luskin entitled “The Positive Case For Design.” This paper claims to be a summary of the scientific case for Intelligent Design (ID). And Luskin does indeed use scientific language, describing ID in terms of the scientific method; Observation, Hypothesis, Experimentation, and Conclusion. The paper is linked above, but it can be summarized as follows:
- Observation:
We can identify through observation of human Intelligent Agents certain aspects and traits common to their designs. Below are four such observations:- Intelligent agents think with an “end goal” in mind, allowing them to solve complex problems by taking many parts and arranging them in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information)
- Intelligent agents introduce fully formed structures into systems and can thus rapidly infuse large amounts of information into systems such that new systems appear discontinuously from previous systems
- Intelligent agents ‘re-use’ functional components that work over and over in different systems (e.g., wheels are re-used on cars and airplanes)
- Intelligent agents create things that have a purpose and a function
- Hypothesis:
For each of the above Observations, we can make a corresponding prediction:- Natural structures will be found that contain complex patterns that solve particular problems.
- Large amounts of novel information will be found very close together in the fossil record.
- Organisms that are not closely related will be found that share the same or very similar specialized organs or structures.
- Systems or organs thought to be “junk” or “vestigial” will turn out to have useful functions.
I won’t bother to repeat Luskin’s experimental (really, observational) data, because I’m not going to dispute it. He’s absolutely correct; all four of his predictions are true. Of course, at least one of his predictions, number 4, is essentially tautological, saying, in effect, “We will eventually understand things better in the future than we did in the past”, but focusing on the predictions is the wrong way to go. The problem isn’t the predictions, it’s the original observations.
Problem 1: Incompleteness
Intelligent Design would be rather compelling if the four traits identified by Luskin were the only traits consistent to all known intelligent agents. However, they are not the only four; in fact, many other traits exhibited by intelligent agents do not fit as neatly into nature. For example:
Observation 5: Complexity
- Observation: Intelligent agents design systems that are either simple and robust or complex and fragile. Buildings and statues can last hundreds and thousands of years, but cars and computers do not.
- Hypothesis: The simplest organisms will have the longest lifespans, and the most complex will have the shortest lifespans.
This trait is almost universal in known intelligent design agents; it is easier to make a thing last a long time if it doesn’t have to do too much. However, there is no such rule in nature. While some arguably simpler organisms such as trees can have a tremendously long life, many higher organisms (such as human beings) live much longer than many lower organisms (such as mollusks). Additionally, a colony of bacteria can live hundreds of years, but each individual bacterium is quite fragile. In short, complexity is not a great indicator of lifespan in nature, but it is in design.
Observation 6: Counter-agency
- Observation: Intelligent Designers generally only create counter-agents against mechanisms that were created by other designers.
- Hypothesis: No natural counter-agents will exist that attack or disable human beings.
Computer anti-virus companies regularly create software to counteract malicious programs written by others. Radar guns and radar detectors are typically manufactured by different companies whose technologies constantly grow to compete with one another. Locks and lock-picks. Guns and bullet-proof vests. All designed by different companies. Yet in the natural world we find both people and cancer. In order to account for this under the Intelligent Design mode, we would require no fewer than two distinct Intelligent Designers.
Observation 7: Replication
- Observation: Intelligent Agents create specialized systems to replicate their creations; the creations themselves do not self-replicate.
- Hypothesis: For each animal or plant found in nature, there will also be a “factory” that produces that creation.
Cars do not possess within them the ability to create other cars, buildings cannot create other buildings, and computers cannot build other computers. Everything created by human intelligent agents requires a separate, specialized creation, a factory, in order to replicate. This would imply that some natural creations would be found that do nothing but manufacture other, separate creatures. We should be able to find a specialized acorn factory creature that does not otherwise behave as a tree. Even the Queen Bee, which could pretty accurately be termed a “Bee Factory”, is still a bee.
Problem 2: “Consistent” vs. “Proven”
Luskin has pointed out four observations about known intelligent designers that are consistent with the natural world. I have listed three additional observations about known intelligent designers that are not consistent with the natural world. Luskin has not proven Intelligent Design, and just as importantly, I have not disproved Intelligent Design.
Why haven’t I disproved Intelligent Design? Because any of my three observations can be explained by the motivations of the designer, which we are not privy to. There can still be an intelligent designer out there who simply chose to deviate from those three trends when designing life on earth. But science is not about guessing motivations; science is about observing evidence.
Conclusion:
If observations about known intelligent designers and how the natural world reflects their practices is sufficient to formulate a scientific theory, then those same observations are sufficient to disprove that scientific theory. However, such observations, as they deal with the motivations of individual designers, is not in fact sufficient basis to formulate a scientific theory. Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.
