Where Does

Intelligent Design

Stand Today?

Taner EdisDepartment of Physics, Truman State University

www2.truman.edu/~edis/

Intelligent Design2008 2

Intelligent Design

• More sophisticated anti-evolution than creationism.

• Becomes visible in 1990s.

• Claims to be driven by science.

Intelligent Design2008 3

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.

Intelligent Design2008 4

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.

Intelligent Design2008 5

ID v.1: Bare improbability

• Example: Cosmic ID. Physical constants “fine-tuned” to make life possible. Life and intelligence extremely improbable.

• Problems: probability concepts, history of physics, current prospects…

• Assume no problem.

α

mp/mn

Λ

C

Intelligent Design2008 6

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.

Intelligent Design2008 7

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?

Intelligent Design2008 8

ID v.2: Improbable complexity

• Information-rich structures found in biology (not cosmology). Not accessible to Darwinian variation-and-selection?

• Mathematically rigorous demonstration: specified complexity? (Dembski)

Intelligent Design2008 9

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!

Intelligent Design2008 10

ID as third option

Intelligent Design2008 11

Dembski’s filter

Intelligent Design2008 12

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.

Intelligent Design2008 13

Computers are not creative

• Programming and input determine the output of a computer. No new information added.

Intelligent Design2008 14

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!

Intelligent Design2008 15

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!

Intelligent Design2008 16

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.

Intelligent Design2008 17

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.

Intelligent Design2008 18

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.

Intelligent Design2008 19

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.

Intelligent Design2008 20

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.

Intelligent Design2008 21

ID becomes creationism rerun

• Intellectually, degenerated into quasi-creationism: no positive case, only “flaws” of “Darwinism.” False confidence.

• Politics, legal battles, pressure on education.

• Cries of persecution.

Intelligent Design2008 22

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.

ID

Intelligent Design2008 23

ID in education

• After Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005), teaching ID difficult.

• Private schools, supplements.

• “Teaching the controversy” / “Strengths and weaknesses.”

Intelligent Design2008 24

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!

Intelligent Design2008 25

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.

Intelligent Design2008 26

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?

Intelligent Design2008 27

Plug

Taner Edis, Science and Nonbelief (Prometheus Books, 2008).

Intelligent Design2008 28

Web site

www2.truman.edu/~edis/• Contains many articles on science and

religion.• E-mail

edis@truman.edu

Intelligent Design2008 29

Thanks for listening!

• Any questions?