Editing Intelligent design (section)

==Concepts==

===Irreducible complexity===
{{Main|Irreducible complexity}}
[[Image:MichaelBehe.jpg|thumbnail|right|The concept of [[irreducible complexity]] was popularised by [[Michael Behe]] in his 1996 book, ''[[Darwin's Black Box]]''.]]
The term "irreducible complexity" was introduced by biochemist [[Michael Behe]] in his 1996 book ''[[Darwin's Black Box]]'', though he had already described the concept in his contributions to the 1993 revised edition of ''Of Pandas and People''.<ref name="pandafounds" /> Behe defines it as "a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.apologetics.org/MolecularMachines/tabid/99/Default.aspx |title=Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference |last=Behe |first=Michael |author-link=Michael Behe |year=1997 |website=Apologetics.org |publisher=The Apologetics Group;[[Trinity College (Florida)|Trinity College of Florida]] |location=Trinity, Fla. |access-date=2014-02-28 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120801101947/http://www.apologetics.org/MolecularMachines/tabid/99/Default.aspx |archive-date=August 1, 2012 }} "This paper was originally presented in the Summer of 1994 at the meeting of the C.S. Lewis Society, Cambridge University."</ref>

Behe uses the analogy of a mousetrap to illustrate this concept. A mousetrap consists of several interacting pieces—the base, the catch, the spring and the hammer—all of which must be in place for the mousetrap to work. Removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. Intelligent design advocates assert that natural selection could not create irreducibly complex systems, because the selectable function is present only when all parts are assembled. Behe argued that irreducibly complex biological mechanisms include the bacterial flagellum of ''[[Escherichia coli|E. coli]]'', the [[Coagulation|blood clotting cascade]], [[Cilium|cilia]], and the adaptive [[immune system]].<ref>Irreducible complexity of these examples is disputed; see {{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter=cv |opinion=2688 |date=December 20, 2005}} [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science]] pp. 76–78, and [[Kenneth R. Miller]]'s January 3, 2006, lecture at [[Case Western Reserve University]]'s Strosacker Auditorium, {{YouTube|id=Ohd5uqzlwsU|title="The Collapse of Intelligent Design: Will the Next Monkey Trial be in Ohio?"}}.</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html |title=The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of 'Irreducible Complexity' |last=Miller |first=Kenneth R. |website=Biology by Miller & Levine |publisher=Miller and Levine Biology |location=Rehoboth, Mass. |access-date=2014-02-28}} "This is a pre-publication copy of an article that appeared in 'Debating Design from Darwin to DNA,' edited by [[Michael Ruse]] and William Dembski."</ref>

Critics point out that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary and therefore could not have been added sequentially.<ref name="reducibly complex mousetrap, Ussery" /> They argue that something that is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary as other components change. Furthermore, they argue, evolution often proceeds by altering preexisting parts or by removing them from a system, rather than by adding them. This is sometimes called the "scaffolding objection" by an analogy with scaffolding, which can support an "irreducibly complex" building until it is complete and able to stand on its own.<ref group="n">{{cite journal |last1=Bridgham |first1=Jamie T. |last2=Carroll |first2=Sean M. |last3=Thornton |first3=Joseph W. |author-link3=Joseph Thornton (biologist) |date=April 7, 2006 |title=Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation |url=https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1123348 |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |volume=312 |issue=5770 |pages=97–101 |bibcode=2006Sci...312...97B |doi=10.1126/science.1123348 |pmid=16601189 |s2cid=9662677 |access-date=2014-02-28|url-access=subscription }} Bridgham, ''et al.'', showed that gradual evolutionary mechanisms can produce complex protein-protein interaction systems from simpler precursors.</ref>
In the case of Behe's mousetrap analogy, it has been shown that a mousetrap can be created with increasingly fewer parts and that even a single part is sufficient.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=McDonald |first=John H. |date=2002 |title=A reducibly complex mousetrap |url=https://udel.edu/~mcdonald/oldmousetrap.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140222041104/http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html |archive-date=2014-02-22 |access-date=2024-11-14 |website=University of Delaware}}</ref>

Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose", and that his "argument against [[Darwinism]] does not add up to a logical proof."<ref group="n">[[#Orr 2005|Orr 2005]]. This article draws from the following exchange of letters in which Behe admits to sloppy prose and non-logical proof:
*{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/a/1406 |title=Has Darwin Met His Match? – Letters: An Exchange Over ID |last1=Behe |first1=Michael |author-link1=Michael Behe |last2=Dembski |first2=William A. |last3=Wells |first3=Jonathan |author-link3=Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) |last4=Nelson |first4=Paul A. |author-link4=Paul Nelson (creationist) |last5=Berlinski |first5=David |author-link5=David Berlinski |date=March 26, 2003 |website=[[Center for Science and Culture]] |publisher=[[Discovery Institute]] |location=Seattle |type=Reprint |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; in the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Dover trial]], the court held that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in [[Peer review|peer-reviewed]] research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."<ref name="Kitzmiller v p. 64" />

===Specified complexity===
{{Main|Specified complexity}}
In 1986, Charles B. Thaxton, a physical chemist and creationist, used the term "specified complexity" from [[information theory]] when claiming that messages transmitted by DNA in the cell were specified by intelligence, and must have originated with an intelligent agent.<ref name="meyermolo" />
The intelligent design concept of "specified complexity" was developed in the 1990s by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian [[William A. Dembski]].<ref name="Time-15-Aug-2005">{{cite magazine |last=Wallis |first=Claudia |date=August 7, 2005 |title=The Evolution Wars |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090909-3,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070114131252/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090909-3,00.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=January 14, 2007 |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |location=New York |publisher=[[Time Inc.]] |access-date=2011-10-22}}</ref> Dembski states that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and "specified", simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rather than being the result of natural processes. He provides the following examples: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A [[Sonnet#English (Shakespearean) sonnet|Shakespearean sonnet]] is both complex and specified."<ref>[[#Dembski 1999|Dembski 1999]], p. 47</ref> He states that details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA.

[[Image:Dembski head shot.jpg|thumbnail|left|upright|[[William A. Dembski]] proposed the concept of specified complexity.<ref>Photograph of William A. Dembski taken at lecture given at [[University of California, Berkeley]], March 17, 2006.</ref>|alt=]]
Dembski defines [[complex specified information]] (CSI) as anything with a less than 1 in 10<sup>150</sup> chance of occurring by (natural) chance. Critics say that this renders the argument a [[Tautology (rhetoric)|tautology]]: complex specified information cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus, so the real question becomes whether or not CSI actually exists in nature.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Fitelson |first1=Branden |last2=Stephens |first2=Christopher |last3=Sober |first3=Elliott |author-link3=Elliott Sober |date=September 1999 |title=How Not to Detect Design |url=http://sober.philosophy.wisc.edu/selected-papers/ID-1999-HowNotToDetectDesign_DembskiReview.pdf?attredirects=0 |format=PDF |journal=[[Philosophy of Science (journal)|Philosophy of Science]] |type=Book review |volume=66 |issue=3 |pages=472–488 |issn=0031-8248 |jstor=188598 |access-date=2014-02-28 |doi=10.1086/392699 |s2cid=11079658 |archive-date=March 17, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150317220736/http://sober.philosophy.wisc.edu/selected-papers/ID-1999-HowNotToDetectDesign_DembskiReview.pdf?attredirects=0 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref group="n">{{cite web |last=Dembski |first=William A. |author-link=William A. Dembski |year=2001 |title=Another Way to Detect Design? |url=http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_anotherwaytodetectdesign.htm |access-date=2012-06-16 |website=Metanexus |publisher=[[Metanexus Institute]] |location=New York}} This is a "three part lecture series entitled 'Another Way to Detect Design' which contains William Dembski's response to Fitelson, Stephens, and Sober whose article 'How Not to Detect Design' ran on Metanexus:Views (2001.09.14, 2001.09.21, and 2001.09.28). These lectures were first made available online at Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Science http://www.metanexus.net. This is from three keynote lectures delivered October 5–6<!--verbatim quote-->, 2001 at the Society of Christian Philosopher's meeting at the University of Colorado, Boulder."</ref><ref name="Wein">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/ |title=Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates: A critique of William Dembski's book ''No Free Lunch'' |last=Wein |first=Richard |year=2002 |website=[[TalkOrigins Archive]] |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston |access-date=2012-06-16}}</ref>

The conceptual soundness of Dembski's specified complexity/CSI argument has been discredited in the scientific and mathematical communities.<ref name="talkorigins.org, math.jmu.edu">{{cite web |last=Baldwin |first=Rich |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/dembski.html |title=Information Theory and Creationism: William Dembski |date=July 14, 2005 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston |access-date=2012-06-16}}
* {{cite journal |last=Rosenhouse |first=Jason |author-link=Jason Rosenhouse |date=Fall 2001 |title=How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics |url=http://educ.jmu.edu/~rosenhjd/sewell.pdf |journal=[[The Mathematical Intelligencer]] |volume=23 |issue=4 |pages=3–8 |doi=10.1007/bf03024593 |s2cid=189888286 |oclc=3526661 |access-date=2012-06-16}}</ref><ref name="Perakh2005a">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkreason.org/articles/newmath.cfm |title=Dembski 'displaces Darwinism' mathematically – or does he? |last=Perakh |first=Mark |author-link=Mark Perakh |date=March 18, 2005 |website=Talk Reason |access-date=2012-06-16}}</ref> Specified complexity has yet to be shown to have wide applications in other fields, as Dembski asserts. John Wilkins and [[Wesley R. Elsberry]] characterize Dembski's "explanatory filter" as ''eliminative'' because it eliminates explanations sequentially: first regularity, then chance, finally defaulting to design. They argue that this procedure is flawed as a model for scientific inference because the asymmetric way it treats the different possible explanations renders it prone to making false conclusions.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wilkins |first1=John S. |last2=Elsberry |first2=Wesley R. |date=November 2001 |title=The Advantages of Theft over Toil: The Design Inference and Arguing from Ignorance |url=http://www.talkdesign.org/cs/theft_over_toil |journal=[[Biology and Philosophy]] |volume=16 |issue=5 |pages=709–722 |doi=10.1023/A:1012282323054 |s2cid=170765232 |issn=0169-3867 |access-date=2014-02-28|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

[[Richard Dawkins]], evolutionary biologist and religion critic, argues in ''[[The God Delusion]]'' (2006) that allowing for an intelligent designer to account for unlikely complexity only postpones the problem, as such a designer would need to be at least as complex.<ref>[[#Dawkins 2006|Dawkins 2006]]</ref> Other scientists have argued that evolution through selection is better able to explain the observed complexity, as is evident from the use of selective evolution to design certain electronic, aeronautic and automotive systems that are considered problems too complex for human "intelligent designers".<ref>{{cite journal |last=Marks |first=Paul |date=July 28, 2007 |title=Evolutionary algorithms now surpass human designers |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526146.000-evolutionary-algorithms-now-surpass-human-designers.html |journal=[[New Scientist]] |issue=2614 |pages=26–27 |issn=0262-4079 |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref>

===Fine-tuned universe===
{{Main|Fine-tuned universe}}
Intelligent design proponents have also occasionally appealed to broader teleological arguments outside of biology, most notably an argument based on the [[Fine-tuned universe|fine-tuning of universal constants]] that make matter and life possible and that are argued not to be solely attributable to chance. These include the values of [[Dimensionless physical constant|fundamental physical constants]], the relative strength of [[nuclear force]]s, [[electromagnetism]], and [[Gravitation|gravity]] between [[Elementary particle|fundamental particles]], as well as the ratios of masses of such particles. Intelligent design proponent and Center for Science and Culture fellow [[Guillermo Gonzalez (astronomer)|Guillermo Gonzalez]] argues that if any of these values were even slightly different, the universe would be dramatically different, making it impossible for many [[chemical element]]s and features of the [[Universe]], such as [[galaxy|galaxies]], to form.<ref>[[#Gonzalez 2004|Gonzalez 2004]]</ref> Thus, proponents argue, an intelligent designer of life was needed to ensure that the requisite features were present to achieve that particular outcome.

Scientists have generally responded that these arguments are poorly supported by existing evidence.<ref>[[#Stenger 2011|Stenger 2011]], p. 243</ref><ref>[[#Susskind 2005|Susskind 2005]]</ref> [[Victor J. Stenger]] and other critics say both intelligent design and the [[Anthropic principle#Variants|weak form]] of the [[anthropic principle]] are essentially a [[Tautology (logic)|tautology]]; in his view, these arguments amount to the claim that life is able to exist because the Universe is able to support life.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf |title=Is The Universe Fine-Tuned For Us? |last=Stenger |first=Victor J |author-link=Victor J. Stenger |website=Victor J. Stenger |publisher=University of Colorado |location=Boulder, Colo. |access-date=2014-02-28 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120716192004/http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf |archive-date=July 16, 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/ant_encyc.pdf |title=The Anthropic Principle |last=Stenger |first=Victor J |author-link=Victor J. Stenger|website=Victor J. Stenger |publisher=University of Colorado |location=Boulder, Colo. |access-date=2012-06-16 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120617015335/http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/ant_encyc.pdf |archive-date=June 17, 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Silk |first=Joseph |author-link=Joseph Silk |date=September 14, 2006 |title=Our place in the Multiverse |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]] |volume=443 |issue=7108 |pages=145–146 |bibcode=2006Natur.443..145S |doi=10.1038/443145a |issn=0028-0836 |doi-access=free }}</ref> The claim of the improbability of a life-supporting universe has also been criticized as an [[Argument from ignorance#Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination|argument by lack of imagination]] for assuming no other forms of life are possible: life as we know it might not exist if things were different, but a different sort of life might exist in its place. A number of critics also suggest that many of the stated variables appear to be interconnected and that calculations made by mathematicians and physicists suggest that the emergence of a universe similar to ours is quite probable.<ref>[[#Huchingson 1993|Feinberg & Shapiro 1993]], "A Puddlian Fable", pp. 220–221</ref>

===Intelligent designer===
{{Main|Intelligent designer}}

The contemporary intelligent design movement formulates its arguments in [[secular]] terms and intentionally avoids identifying the intelligent agent (or agents) they posit. Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene. Dembski, in ''[[The Design Inference]]'' (1998), speculates that an [[Extraterrestrial life|alien]] culture could fulfill these requirements. ''Of Pandas and People'' proposes that [[Search for extraterrestrial intelligence|SETI]] illustrates an appeal to intelligent design in science. In 2000, philosopher of science [[Robert T. Pennock]] suggested the [[Raëlian beliefs and practices|Raëlian]] [[Unidentified flying object|UFO]] religion as a real-life example of an extraterrestrial intelligent designer view that "make[s] many of the same bad arguments against evolutionary theory as creationists".<ref>[[#Pennock 1999|Pennock 1999]], pp. 229–229, 233–242</ref> The authoritative description of intelligent design,<ref name="DI-topquestions" /> however, explicitly states that the ''Universe'' displays features of having been designed. Acknowledging the [[paradox]], Dembski concludes that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/a/119 |title=The Act of Creation: Bridging Transcendence and Immanence |last=Dembski |first=William A. |date=August 10, 1998 |website=Center for Science and Culture |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |access-date=2014-02-28}} "Presented at Millstatt Forum, Strasbourg, France, 10 August 1998."</ref> The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions.<ref name="dembski_logos" />

Beyond the debate over whether intelligent design is scientific, a number of critics argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely, irrespective of its status in the world of science. For example, [[Jerry Coyne]] asks why a designer would "give us a pathway for making [[vitamin C]], but then destroy it by disabling one of its enzymes" (see [[pseudogene]]) and why a designer would not "stock oceanic islands with reptiles, mammals, amphibians, and freshwater fish, despite the suitability of such islands for these species". Coyne also points to the fact that "the flora and fauna on those islands resemble that of the nearest mainland, even when the environments are very different" as evidence that species were not placed there by a designer.<ref name="CoyneTNR">{{cite magazine |last=Coyne |first=Jerry |author-link=Jerry Coyne |date=August 22, 2005 |title=The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name |url=http://www.edge.org/conversation/the-case-against-intelligent-design |magazine=[[The New Republic]] |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> Previously, in ''Darwin's Black Box'', Behe had argued that we are simply incapable of understanding the designer's motives, so such questions cannot be answered definitively. Odd designs could, for example, "...have been placed there by the designer for a reason—for artistic reasons, for variety, to show off, for some as-yet-undetected practical purpose, or for some unguessable reason—or they might not."<ref name="odd_design">[[#Behe 1996|Behe 1996]], p. 221</ref> Coyne responds that in light of the evidence, "either life resulted not from intelligent design, but from evolution; or the intelligent designer is a cosmic prankster who designed everything to make it look as though it had evolved."<ref name="CoyneTNR" />

Intelligent design proponents such as [[Paul Nelson (creationist)|Paul Nelson]] avoid the [[Argument from poor design|problem of poor design in nature]] by insisting that we have simply failed to understand the perfection of the design. Behe cites Paley as his inspiration, but he differs from Paley's expectation of a perfect Creation and proposes that designers do not necessarily produce the best design they can. Behe suggests that, like a parent not wanting to spoil a child with extravagant toys, the designer can have multiple motives for not giving priority to excellence in engineering. He says that "Another problem with the argument from imperfection is that it critically depends on a psychoanalysis of the unidentified designer. Yet the reasons that a designer would or would not do anything are virtually impossible to know unless the designer tells you specifically what those reasons are."<ref name="odd_design" /> This reliance on inexplicable motives of the designer makes intelligent design scientifically untestable. Retired [[University of California, Berkeley|UC Berkeley]] law professor, author and intelligent design advocate [[Phillip E. Johnson]] puts forward a core definition that the designer creates for a purpose, giving the example that in his view [[HIV/AIDS|AIDS]] was created to punish immorality and [[HIV/AIDS denialism|is not caused by HIV]], but such motives cannot be tested by scientific methods.<ref name="Pennock 245">[[#Pennock 1999|Pennock 1999]], pp. 245–249, 265, 296–300</ref>

Asserting the need for a designer of complexity also raises the question "What designed the designer?"<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/empty.htm |title=Intelligent Design: The Glass is Empty |last=Simanek |first=Donald E. |date=February 2006 |website=Donald Simanek's Pages |publisher=[[Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania]] |location=Lock Haven, PA |access-date=2012-06-16 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120714082248/http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/empty.htm |archive-date=2012-07-14 }}</ref> Intelligent design proponents say that the question is irrelevant to or outside the scope of intelligent design.<ref group="n">{{cite web |url=http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1147 |title=FAQ: Who designed the designer? |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |website=[[Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center]] |publisher=Casey Luskin; IDEA Center |location=Seattle |type=Short answer |access-date=2014-02-28 |quote=One need not fully understand the origin or identity of the designer to determine that an object was designed. Thus, this question is essentially irrelevant to intelligent design theory, which merely seeks to detect if an object was designed.... Intelligent design theory cannot address the identity or origin of the designer—it is a philosophical / religious question that lies outside the domain of scientific inquiry. Christianity postulates the religious answer to this question that the designer is God who by definition is eternally existent and has no origin. There is no logical philosophical impossibility with this being the case (akin to [[Aristotle]]'s 'unmoved mover') as a religious answer to the origin of the designer.}}</ref> Richard Wein counters that "...scientific explanations often create new unanswered questions. But, in assessing the value of an explanation, these questions are not irrelevant. They must be balanced against the improvements in our understanding which the explanation provides. Invoking an unexplained being to explain the origin of other beings (ourselves) is little more than [[Begging the question|question-begging]]. The new question raised by the explanation is as problematic as the question which the explanation purports to answer."<ref name="Wein" /> [[Richard Dawkins]] sees the assertion that the designer does not need to be explained as a [[Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism#Thought-terminating cliché|thought-terminating cliché]].<ref name="Rosenhouse">{{cite web |url=http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/who_designed_the_designer/ |title=Who Designed the Designer? |last=Rosenhouse |first=Jason |date=November 3, 2006 |website=[[Committee for Skeptical Inquiry]] |series=Intelligent Design Watch |location=Amherst, N.Y. |publisher=[[Center for Inquiry]] |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref><ref>[[#Dawkins 1986|Dawkins 1986]], p. 141</ref> In the absence of observable, measurable evidence, the question "What designed the designer?" leads to an [[turtles all the way down|infinite regression]] from which intelligent design proponents can only escape by resorting to religious creationism or logical contradiction.<ref>See for example {{cite web |url=http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/050927voices_pseudoscience |title=Intelligent design is pseudoscience |last=Manson |first=Joseph |date=September 27, 2005 |work=UCLA Today |access-date=2014-05-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140515090423/http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/050927voices_pseudoscience |archive-date=May 15, 2014 |url-status=dead }}</ref>