Intelligent Design: Bad Science, Bad Philosophy, or Both?

Taner EdisTaner EdisTruman State UniversityTruman State University

www2.truman.edu/~edis

2003 Intelligent Design 2

Our response to creationism

We say creationism is not science––not just that creationists do not practice science, but that the very idea of supernatural design is out of bounds for science.

We say creation is an essentially religious or at least metaphysical notion. Science is all about natural explanations for natural phenomena. Totally different.

2003 Intelligent Design 3

Interfering philosophers

Some philosophers give sophisticated version.

Robert Pennock: science must follow methodological naturalism (MN). Excludes ID, protects liberal religion.

No ID in science class!

2003 Intelligent Design 4

But is science naturalistic?

Philosophers dictating what science must be do not have a great track record.

Historically strange: Biologists adopted evolution as better explanation––they didn’t suddenly decide creation was not allowed.

Explanations involving design and intent not odd, e.g. in history. Nothing wrong with ID in biology as a hypothesis.

2003 Intelligent Design 5

Practical naturalism

Philosophical ID supporters attack MN, as illegitimately excluding ID.

They’re right. Politically bad move as well. Better view: Naturalism is the most

successful, best-supported broad description of the world. We expect this to continue.

ID could be scientifically correct. It just happens to be wrong.

2003 Intelligent Design 6

ID is a scientific mistake

Protecting the integrity of science education should be the job of scientists, more than philosophers!

The strongest reason to keep ID out of secular education is that ID proponents do make scientific claims, and they consistently get it wrong.

Ask scientists how they explain complexity.

2003 Intelligent Design 7

Bottom-up naturalism

Physical science takes a “bottom-up” view. No “life force”; no “molecular soul” to give properties of H2O.

Complexity is built up on the simple.

Life Biology

Molecules Chemistry

Particles & Forces Physics

No magic

No life force

2003 Intelligent Design 8

Chance and Necessity

Physics relies on chance and necessity.

Radioactive decays happen at random.

H2O structure explained by physical laws; QM.

Combinations of chance and necessity!

2003 Intelligent Design 9

Rules and Dice

Chance and necessity are inseparable.

F = G

m1

m2

r12

2+

2003 Intelligent Design 10

Complexity?

How, then, do we explain complexity?

Theories of thermodynamics (self-organization), computation, evolution etc.

All are related, and all do their work through chance and necessity.

Life becomes mechanical?

2003 Intelligent Design 11

ID: A separate principle

F = G

m1m

2

r12

2

++

2003 Intelligent Design 12

“Specified complexity”

William Dembski, mathematician and philosopher. Leading theorist of ID.

ID irreducible form of explanation, distinct from chance & necessity.

ID is a revolution.

2003 Intelligent Design 13

Dembski’s claims

Both designed artifacts and organisms exhibit special order: specified complexity.

Chance and necessity cannot generate SC, or information.

Intelligence is a separate principle. Blind mechanisms (like those of Darwinian

evolution) cannot explain life. Artificial Intelligence is impossible.

2003 Intelligent Design 14

Testing for Design

Günaydinlar!

Bugün hava iyi,

ancak yarin daha

kötü olacak gibi.

Bulut çok, ama ne

yapar, belli degil.F = G

m1m

2

r12

contingencycontingency

complexity

specifi-cation

2003 Intelligent Design 15

Why computers can’t create

Günaydinlar!

Bugün hava iyi,

ancak yarin daha

kötü olacak gibi.

Bulut çok, ama ne

yapar, belli degil.

print create

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

2003 Intelligent Design 16

What about chance?

Chance outcomes are not determined by input and programming. And Darwinian variation-and-selection relies on random mutations which might work better…

Dembski says nothing changes. In that case, the SC (information) is extracted from the selection criteria.

2003 Intelligent Design 17

How are we creative?

Humans are truly 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.

Dembski’s SC + this No mechanism can be creative, including Darwin’s.

2003 Intelligent Design 18

Where is ID mistaken?

All the previous claims are wrong. Approach AI aspect first: how can we get

flexibility and creativity without magic? ID, and Gödelian arguments, demand that

humans are nonalgorithmic, beyond computer programs.

This can be achieved by combining programs (rules) with randomness.

2003 Intelligent Design 19

Game theory

In games where the opponent can adapt to a set strategy and exploit it, occasional random behavior can be the best strategy.

Not bound by rules. Novelty, unpredictability come from randomness.

2003 Intelligent Design 20

Completeness Theorem

All functions are partly random (Edis 1998). The only tasks beyond rules and

randomness (chance and necessity) are those needing infinite information. We have no way to do these.

Any human output, including that with specified complexity, can be produced by mechanisms including chance.

2003 Intelligent Design 21

ID cannot work!

We know what is beyond mechanisms. Not flexibility, not creativity, not specified complexity.

Intelligence itself must be built out of chance and necessity. Not a separate principle!

2003 Intelligent Design 22

Darwinian Creativity

How, then, can randomness give real creativity?

Biologists have already solved this problem. The Darwinian mechanism does exactly this––creates information (Schneider 2000).

Darwinian thinking has become common in other fields concerning creativity––in AI, and cognitive and brain sciences.

2003 Intelligent Design 23

Darwin takes over the brain

Our own intelligent designs are enabled by Darwinian processes taking place within our brains!

2003 Intelligent Design 24

Dembski’s mistake

Dembski thinks of evolution as solution to a preset problem.

Evolution is no such thing. What is “fittest” continually changes, depending on the organisms themselves. There is no preset or final goal.

ID is completely out of touch with today’s science concerning complexity.

2003 Intelligent Design 25

Creationism is futile

In Darwin’s time, we could still say intelligence was a principle separate from chance and necessity; but the evidence was that life diversified by blind mechanisms.

Today, we can again notice that artifacts and organisms are alike. This is because intelligence itself is absorbed in chance and necessity. Intelligence is itself Darwinian!

2003 Intelligent Design 26

ID gets it wrong!

We can see ID has it wrong about complexity, and we see this by doing good, ordinary science––not just philosophy.

Politically difficult to say ID is like the flat earth, since ID expresses deep theistic intuitions about divine design.

Nevertheless, scientists should at least stand up and say we know better.

2003 Intelligent Design 27

Shameless plugs

Chapter in Taner Edis, The Ghost in the UniverseThe Ghost in the Universe, (Prometheus, 2002).

In preparation: essays by scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers, criticizing ID.

2003 Intelligent Design 28

My web site

www2.truman.edu/~edis Contains all sorts of articles on ID,

creationism and other topics, including the slides of this talk.

My e-mail is edis@truman.edu