PHILOSOPHICAL LANGUAGE & THOUGHT
Certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection - The Discovery Institute
A bit of background first. In America, the First Amendment to the Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is interpreted to mean the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
This means religious ideas cannot be taught in American state schools (no Religious Studies lessons!!!). If Intelligent Design is to be taught in Biology lessons, it must be a NON-RELIGIOUS scientific theory. More of this later... |
Biologist Michael Behe uses the bacterial flagellum as his example and compares it to a mousetrap.
The mousetrap consists of only a few parts: if just one was removed it wouldn't function any more. This is how we know it was designed. Behe argues that the flagellum is the same.This tiny organism has a whip-like tale that works by a mechanism, that resembles a crank shaft in a man-made vehicle. It's a very basic organism, but it's still a complex one. Behe claims it couldn't have evolved from a simpler stage, because it wouldn't work if it was any simpler. |
|
|
|
Michael Behe outlines what he sees as "Intelligent Design" in cells
|
Michael Behe and Scott Minnich explain the bacterial flagellum and irreducible complexity
|
An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition non-function - Michael Behe
The point about the bacterial flagellum is that it doesn't exist in isolation. Michael Behe claims there are other examples of irreducible complexity in nature:
Other scientists have rejected Behe's ideas, claiming that the flagellum would have a function if it was simpler - just a different function.
For example, the injectisome needle found in some bacteria seems to be a simpler version of the flagellum. |
In 2004, a school in Dover, Pennsylvania provided students with a set of science textbooks that advocated Intelligent Design. A group of teachers and parents protested, under their First Amendment rights, and took the school board to trial. Kitzmiller vs Dover School Board (2005) brought biologists to act as expert witnesses.
Michael Behe and Scott Minnich represented the case that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, not a religious belief, and argued that children are entitled to be taught about a debate concerning evolution in their science lessons. Ken Miller and others argued that Intelligent Design is a "pseudo-science" that misunderstands evolutionary theory and does not challenge it. |
Ken Miller sums up the argument he made in the 2005 trial
|
|
|
This 2-hour documentary is a fantastic dramatisation of the Kitzmiller vs Dover School Board trial
|
This BBC documentary is only 1 hour long and features Richard Dawkins being grumpy
|
The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory - Judge John E. Jones III
Teach Darwin's elegant theory. But also discuss where it has real problems accounting for the data ... and where alternative, even "heretical," explanations are possible - Michael Behe
YES
There's a genuine controversy out there about whether Evolution really explains the appearance of design in living creatures and good teachers should "teach the controversy" rather than just presenting students with one view - the Evolutionist view - is the only one that exists.
The Intelligent Design movement isn't demanding for ID to be compulsory or Evolution to be restricted on the curriculum. They just argue that teachers should have the choice about presenting students with an alternative to Darwinian Evolution. Really, this is about intellectual freedom being restricted by pro-Darwin scientists.
|
NO
Intelligent Design isn't science - it's pseudo-science. Teaching it alongside the Theory of Evolution as if the two views have equal plausibility is misleading for students and confuses them about the difference between a scientific theory (evolution) and a religious belief (ID).
Intelligent Design is "the thin end of the wedge". It's a tactic used by religious groups to undermine the teaching of scientific theories that conflict with their beliefs. We need to take a stand against this because history shows that, when these groups get any influence, use it to censor and control what students can read and study.
|
William Paley was a lifelong supporter of the Design Argument. In his lifetime, the Design Argument was demolished by David Hume (see below), but, after Hume's death, Paley returned to the Design Argument with then publication of his book, Natural Theology, in 1802.
Paley's book contains one of the most famous and memorable versions of the Design Argument, the "Analogy of the Watch on the Heath". Paley explains it like this: |
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer.
BUT SUPPOSE I HAD FOUND A WATCH UPON THE GROUND, AND IT SHOULD BE INQUIRED HOW THE WATCH HAPPENED TO BE IN THAT PLACE; I SHOULD HARDLY THINK OF THE ANSWER I HAD BEFORE GIVEN, THAT FOR ANYTHING I KNEW, THE WATCH MIGHT HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THERE...
Paley's second premise is that there are other things that we do try to explain in terms of design. We don't imagine for a moment they could have come about through unintended natural forces. A pocket watch is the example Paley gives, but more recently the "Junkyard Tornado" analogy uses a Boeing-747 jet.
But in what way is the watch different from the stone? |
THERE MUST HAVE EXISTED, AT SOME TIME, AND AT SOME PLACE OR OTHER, AN ARTIFICER OR ARTIFICERS, WHO FORMED [THE WATCH] FOR THE PURPOSE WHICH WE FIND IT ACTUALLY TO ANSWER; WHO COMPREHENDED ITS CONSTRUCTION, AND DESIGNED ITS USE...
EVERY INDICATION OF CONTRIVANCE, EVERY MANIFESTATION OF DESIGN, WHICH EXISTED IN THE WATCH, EXISTS IN THE WORKS OF NATURE; WITH THE DIFFERENCE, ON THE SIDE OF NATURE, OF BEING GREATER OR MORE, AND THAT IN A DEGREE WHICH EXCEEDS ALL COMPUTATION."
|
|
an extraordinary degree of care, an anxiety for its preservation, due, if we may so speak, to its value and its tenderness
For Paley, the fact that eyes are safely tucked away inside the sockets of skulls is evidence that God not only designs intricate things, but also cares for them and wishes to keep them safe. This feature of Paley's argument rejects the common challenge, that the Design Argument leads only to the remote God of Deism rather than the loving God of Christianity.
Paley is also familiar with the dysteleological argument. Some eyes don't work very well, some people are born blind or develop cataracts or short-sightedness or glaucoma. Some people are colour-blind and everyone (except octopuses!) has a "blind spot" where the optical nerve passes through the retina. Paley has a response: |
It is not necessary that a machine be perfect, in order to show with what design it was made
Whatever is done, God could have done without the intervention of instruments or means: but it is in the construction of instruments, in the choice and adaptation of means, that a creative intelligence is seen
What Paley means is that God could, if he wanted, enable everyone to see "by a miracle" and not bother with eyes at all. But God wants to display his "creative intelligence" so that humans can understand him better. God creates laws of nature and then works within those laws.
Paley's God is a bit like Shakespeare writing a sonnet: he's made the poem difficult for himself by limiting himself to 14 lines of iambic pentameter, but the achievement is all the greater for it. |
Paley also proposes a design qua regularity argument as well as the argument based on the watch. Paley was inspired Newton's laws of motion and gravity which were formulated in 1687. Newton's physics suggested that the universe worked like clockwork in predictable patterns. Paley argues that life is possible on Earth because the orbits of planets are so regular. He focuses on gravity and suggests that gravity needs to be consistent within narrow boundaries to produce planets with stable orbits round the sun. He argues that this regularity has been directed by some higher power: God.
|
YES
Paley sets out an argument that even Richard Dawkins admits is "as elegant as it is mistaken". He incorporates the latest scientific thinking on gravity, planetary orbits and anatomy to show two types of design: qua purpose and qua regularity. He anticipates the entire 20th century revival of the Design Argument with Intelligent Design (purpose) and fine-tuning (regularity).
The watch analogy draws our attention to design that we otherwise take for granted. Since we're surrounded by complex patterns in nature (indeed, we are complex patterns in nature) we easily overlook them. The job of religious philosophers is to get us to notice how strange the world is and awaken our curiosity about it. This is what Paley does.
|
NO
Paley's arguments were refuted by David Hume long before Natural Theology was published - and Paley knew it. Anthony Flew complains about religious believers who won't allow their beliefs to be falsified and Paley seems to be like this: if proven wrong, he just repeats himself. He sets a poor example for future religious philosophers to follow.
There's a difference between being curious and being credulous. When Jesus' face turns up on a taco shell or a cloud drifts into the shape of a duck, a reasonable person does not infer the guiding hand of a supernatural being. Fifty years after Paley's book, evolution became a scientific attempt to explain patterns in nature. Paley is looking for purpose and intention where there isn't any.
|
David Hume addressed the Design Argument in his famous book, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779). The book was published after Hume's death, because attacking religious beliefs was considered a sensitive subject.
The book takes the form of a play, in which three characters debate religion.
|
A very small part of this great system, during a very short time, is very imperfectly discovered to us; and do we then pronounce decisively concerning the origin of the whole? - Philo
To ascertain this reasoning, it were requisite that we had experience of the origin of worlds; and it is not sufficient, surely, that we have seen ships and cities arise from human art and contrivance - PHILO
It must happen, in an eternal duration, that every possible order or position must be tried an infinite number of times - Philo
This world, for aught he knows, is very faulty and imperfect, compared to a superior standard - Philo
[This world] was only the first rude essay of some infant deity, who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance - Philo
it is the work only of some dependent, inferior deity; and is the object of derision to his superiors
it is the production of old age and dotage in some superannuated deity; and ever since his death, has run on at adventures, from the first impulse and active force which it received from him
Philo points out that the mind of every intelligent designer in human history has had a physical body. If we take the analogy between God and man seriously, God's mind should also be contained in a body.
The Design Argument leads, not to a belief in a single, all-powerful, spiritual God, but instead to a belief in a team of physical gods who are very imperfect, with human passions and needs - rather like the 12 Greek gods of Mount Olympus. |
The whole presents nothing but the idea of a blind Nature, impregnated by a great vivifying principle, and pouring forth from her lap, without discernment or parental care, her maimed and abortive children! - Philo
YES
The breadth of Hume's analysis is staggering. He covers every type of criticism of the Design Argument, both of its validity and its soundness, with great imagination and wit. Modern-day critics like Richard Dawkins are only recycling Hume's arguments from the Dialogues. Hume's criticisms are just as devastating for modern analogies, like "Junkyard Tornado" or the bacterial flagellum.
Hume's criticisms attack the use of analogy and the anthropomorphisation of God. These two features of the Design Argument continue today, in the fine-tuning argument and in Intelligent Design. Nothing new has been added to the structure of the Design Argument since Hume's day and Hume shows this structure is invalid.
|
NO
Hume was writing when the sciences had only just begun to reveal the structure and laws of the universe. We have a much clearer picture of design now. Hume's arguments about not being able to apply Earth's laws to the rest of the universe or his "Epicurean Hypothesis" about randomly-colliding atoms have been refuted by modern scientific understanding. That's why philosophers are reappraising the Design Argument today.
Hume is attacking the religious believers of his own day (represented by Cleanthes and Demea), but arguments have moved on since then. The Design Argument isn't used today to demonstrate the truth of the Christian religion. It doesn't pretend to be a deductive proof: believers like Richard Swinburne argue cumulative experience shows God is more probable than not.
|