Where Does
Intelligent
Design
Stand Today?
Taner Edis
Department of Physics,
Truman State University
www2.truman.edu/
~edis/
Intelligent Design
• More
sophisticated antievolution than
creationism.
• Becomes visible
in 1990s.
• Claims to be
driven by science.
2008
Intelligent Design
2
Response to ID
• Usual reaction from
mainstream science: ID
not naturalistic, not
admissible as science.
• ID proponents: limiting
science to natural
explanations
illegitimately constrains
inquiry.
2008
Intelligent Design
3
Scientific criticism
• Some scientists have
been curious. ID is likely
wrong. But we can learn
from finding out how.
• Interesting questions
about complexity and
information.
• ID can be scientifically
criticized.
2008
Intelligent Design
4
ID v.1: Bare improbability
• Example: Cosmic ID.
Physical constants “finetuned” to make life possible.
Life and intelligence
extremely improbable.
• Problems: probability
concepts, history of physics,
current prospects…
• Assume no problem.
2008
Intelligent Design
5
ID v.1: Non-explanation
• Designer explanation:
Highlights no new
pattern, no prediction.
Repeats what is known.
• “Design” empty without
specific, independent
knowledge about
designer (Sober).
• Useless for science.
2008
Intelligent Design
6
ID v.2: Darwin inadequate
• Failure of established
explanation would create
room for design.
• Positive case: find
signature of intelligent
design. Some feature not
accessible to Darwinian
mechanisms?
2008
Intelligent Design
7
ID v.2: Improbable complexity
• Information-rich structures
found in biology (not
cosmology). Not accessible
to Darwinian variation-andselection?
• Mathematically rigorous
demonstration: specified
complexity? (Dembski)
2008
Intelligent Design
8
Chance and Necessity
• Physics relies on
chance and necessity.
• Radioactive decays
happen at random.
• H2O structure
explained by physical
laws.
• Combinations of
chance and necessity!
2008
Intelligent Design
9
ID as third option
2008
Intelligent Design
10
Dembski’s filter
2008
Intelligent Design
11
Concessions to ID
• Such ideas capture some
common intuitions about
design and complexity.
Take them seriously.
• Similar to theoretical
proposals in physics:
subject to scientific
criticism. Cannot dismiss
as non-science.
2008
Intelligent Design
12
Computers are not creative
• Programming and input determine the output
of a computer. No new information added.
2008
Intelligent Design
13
Not bound by rules
• Humans are creative––we are flexible, not
bound by pre-programmed rules. We always
might figure out a new way to do things.
• Gödelian critique of AI: Any system of rules is
rigid; it has blind spots. ID: no mechanism
(including Darwin’s) can be creative.
• Humans are nonalgorithmic, beyond computer
programs. Yes!
2008
Intelligent Design
14
A source of novelty
• In games where the
opponent can adapt to a
set strategy, occasional
random behavior
can be the best strategy.
• Novelty, unpredictability
come from randomness.
• Combine chance and
necessity for flexibility!
2008
Intelligent Design
15
Completeness Theorem
• The only tasks beyond rules and
randomness (chance and necessity)
require infinite information to be known.
• Any human output can be
produced by mechanisms
combining rules and
randomness.
2008
Intelligent Design
16
Darwinian creativity
• Intelligence relies on broadly Darwinian
processes combining chance and necessity.
• Darwinian thinking has become common in in
AI, and cognitive and brain sciences.
2008
Intelligent Design
17
Criticisms of ID “theory”
• My criticism: Nothing like
Dembski’s filter––not even
“fixed” ID, can possibly work.
• Others: Perakh, Stenger,
Sober, etc. etc.
• Misuse of NFL theorems.
• CSI supposed to be linked to
Behe’s IC, but IC is a failure.
2008
Intelligent Design
18
Dembski’s response to critics
• Ignore criticism,
particularly WIDF.
• Dead-end attempts at
mathematical rigor.
• Non-intellectual
polemic.
• Popular ID books with
no new ideas.
2008
Intelligent Design
19
Behe’s response to critics
• To save “irreducible
complexity,” demand full
Darwinian pathways––
partial sample not enough.
• Switch to other arguments
that have got even less
attention from biologists.
• Unfamiliarity with literature.
2008
Intelligent Design
20
ID becomes creationism rerun
• Intellectually, degenerated into quasicreationism: no positive case, only
“flaws” of “Darwinism.” False confidence.
• Politics,
legal battles,
pressure on
education.
• Cries of
persecution.
2008
Intelligent Design
21
Where does ID stand?
• In the realm of science, ID
is no longer interesting. It
has had its day. Fatal
criticisms, largely ignored.
• ID is not a proper
intellectual enterprise!
• ID is still significant as an
object of study. Science
and religion.
2008
Intelligent Design
ID
22
ID in education
• After Kitzmiller v.
Dover (2005),
teaching ID difficult.
• Private schools,
supplements.
• “Teaching the
controversy” /
“Strengths and
weaknesses.”
2008
Intelligent Design
23
Legal issues
• 1st amendment is only
barrier against ID in
public schools. No law
against bad science.
• ID is (partly) bad
science.
• Kitzmiller decision was
lucky. Not always!
2008
Intelligent Design
24
ID is alive and well
• ID had a brief stage of
zombiehood in science.
• ID is alive in education.
Louisiana law in 2008.
• ID is doing well as a
cultural phenomenon.
Grassroots support,
sympathy of some
intellectuals.
2008
Intelligent Design
25
Parallel institutions?
• ID not sensitive to
scientific criticism.
• Whether ID flourishes
depends on cultural
support translating to
organizational clout
and focused funding.
• Intellectual debate a
side-show?
2008
Intelligent Design
26
Plug
Taner Edis,
Science and
Nonbelief
(Prometheus
Books, 2008).
2008
Intelligent Design
27
Web site
www2.truman.edu/~edis/
• Contains many articles on science and
religion.
• E-mail
edis@truman.edu
2008
Intelligent Design
28
Thanks for listening!
• Any questions?
2008
Intelligent Design
29