Thomas

Rachel Thomas
Dr. Bishop
SCI 301
04 May 2016
Final Essay
Prompt: Evaluate Intelligent Design in light of the material on methodology and
foundations we covered in the first half of the semester. How well does this view hold up as
a scientific view? How well does it hold up as a theological view?
Throughout the course in the foundations of natural science (SCI 301), students have
developed the skills to investigate the relationship between science and theology. The course has
developed the students skills of communicating arguments that defend philosophical positions
relevant to scientific-theological relations. Students examined and responded to potential
objections to various philosophical positions. In the following pages I will evaluate Intelligent
Design in light of the ability to integrate science and theology. I will begin by outlining the
background of Intelligent Design and its major arguments. Then I will evaluate how well
Intelligent Design holds up as both a scientific view and a theological view in light of its
foundations and methodologies.
Michael Behe is a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University in Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania. According to Behe, Intelligent design is a scientific theory that proposes that
some aspects of life are best explained as the result of design, and that the strong appearance of
design in life is real and not just apparent (Judgment Day). Intelligent design is not based upon
any religious beliefs or convictions, but instead relies completely upon empirical and physical
evidence from nature, as well as logical inferences, according to Behe. Kenneth Miller claims

Thomas

that Behe referred to design as one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time (Miller 13).
Intelligent design is usually cast as a very reasonable to the Darwinian ideas of evolution
(Tierney et al. 43).
In his book called Darwins Black Box, Behe describes design as simply the purposeful
arrangement of parts. When we perceive that parts have been arranged to fulfill a purpose, thats
when we infer design (193). The primary strategy of intelligent design is to ignore differences
in detail among competing creation accounts, as well as to focus on the impossibility of a
complex universe without some kind of outside intervention.
In order to argue his theory for intelligent design, Behe set criteria for being able to detect
design. Behe says that [Design] is evident when a number of separate, interacting components
are ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond the individual components. The
greater the specificity of the interacting components required to produce the function, the greater
is our confidence in the conclusion of design (Behe194). What Behe means is that an
identifiable function of a system is crucial for detecting design, and should be scientifically
identifiable.
Behe argues that the bacterial flagellum could not possibly have evolved, because its
parts do not have any function that natural selection could act on until they are completely and
fully assembled. He says, Clearly, if something was not put together gradually, then it must
have been put together quickly or even suddenly. If adding individual pieces does not
continuously improve the function of a system, then multiple pieces have to be added together
(187). Per Behes argument, an intelligent cause makes infinitely more sense for irreducibly
complex systems then would an unintelligent or mechanical cause. This would be an example of
abduction, or inference to the best explanation.

Thomas

Behe goes on to explain a number of living biochemical systems that demonstrate

intelligent design at work. One such system is the bodys blood-clotting system, specifically the
new protein that combines the clot-dissolving properties of plasmin with the rapid-activation
property of proteins that are cleaved by thrombin (Behe 201). Behe argues that the researchers
that developed this protein demonstrated that a designer was the only possible way to create this
complex protein that no one had ever seen before. Without someone to intelligently design the
system, the protein would not have simply evolved into its complex state.
The methodology and foundations of the Intelligent Design argument follow an abductive
pattern of argument. Behe takes the evidence of the irreducibly complex bacterial flagellum and
infers that Intelligent Design must be the best explanation for the complexity of the flagellum.
According to Andrew J. Petto, Intelligent Design as a scientific argument rests on the
foundations of complexity and information. Instead of focusing on Biblical narratives, the
scientific ideas of ID form the focus of the argument against evolution (20).
Proponents of Intelligent Design claim that ID is a purely scientific viewpoint (Hafer
512). In order to at least appear to be more scientific in nature, advocates of Intelligent Design
advocates have exposed their evidence in more technical and mathematical ways (Petto 20).
However, contemporary scientific views are unable to provide plausible explanations for an
event or condition that would define the essential qualities of living organisms. Any current
scientific argument stemming from Intelligent Design has failed to account for certain aspects of
history and the diversity of life on earth (Petto 20).
Hafers experiments tested whether or not Intelligent Design could be considered a
scientific discipline or not. She discovered that Intelligent Design did not follow the basic
requirements for scientific research. First off, Intelligent Design is a supernatural explanation.

Thomas

Second, ID cannot be used to make predictions. Third, ID relies on argumentation instead of data
and the testing of hypotheses. Intelligent Design is found to be of philosophical nature, not
science (512).
Intelligent Design remains controversial in both the scientific and theological spheres
because it claims to find signs of intelligence in biological systems. Francisco Ayala claims that
Darwins greatest achievement was to be able to show the organization and complexity of
organisms without an intelligent designer (Dembski 33). Therefore, design directly challenges
Darwins ideas and other naturally scientific approaches to origins and evolution. Intelligent
Design has never been able to claim a spot in mainstream scientific theory.
In order for design to be able to be a solid scientific concept, by the standards developed
in the first semester of the course, scientists need to be able to be able to reliably determine
whether something is designed or not (Dembski 34). If Intelligent Design is unable to reliably
prove design in nature, then the concept would be falsifiable. However, according to Dembski,
design theorists argue that they have now formulated precise methods for discriminating
designed from undersigned objects (34). Design theorists do in fact focus on identifiable
systems, such as individual enzymes, metabolic pathways, molecular machines, and so on. Once
an essential part of the organism exhibits specified complexity, the whole organism is deemed
complex (Dembski 34).
Another fallacy that arises within the Intelligent Design argument is a series of both false
negatives and false positives. False negatives are endemic to detecting intelligent causes, and
thus arise easily (Doran 224). One specific difficulty is that intelligent causes can successfully
imitate necessity or chance, which makes intelligent causation look unintelligent (Doran 224).
Another difficulty is that the detection of intelligence requires specific skill and knowledge, such

Thomas

as Hansons view of observation would call for. If the investigator does not have the skills and
background knowledge necessary to observe intelligence, he or she will not be able to detect
intelligence, even if it is present. One must also recognize that an intelligent agent could feasibly
conceal its creative actions in ways that make them unnoticeable to a design investigator (Doran
224). However, Dembski is undaunted by this handicap: When for whatever reason an
intelligent cause fails to make its action evident, we may miss it. But when an intelligent cause
succeeds in making its action evident, we take notice. This is why false negatives do not
invalidate the complexity-specification criterion (Doran 224).
When dealing with the fallacy of false positives, one cannot use specified complexity as a
reliable criterion for eliminating design, but only for detecting design. A designer may mimic
causes that are unintelligent or leave clues behind that an investigator may miss. Investigators
cannot account for the skill of the designer or the lack of knowledge on the part of the designer.
Therefore Dembski believes that it is more important that the net always catch designed things
and occasionally allow designed things to go unnoticed than for non-designed things to stay in
the net (Doran 225).
Hafer explains that proponents of Intelligent Design point to scientific articles and books
that have been published and use these as evidence that ID is scientific (507). However, it has
been pointed out that articles which promote Intelligent Design tend not to appear in peerreviewed scientific journals. Proponents of ID claim that their work is valid science and also
claim that their articles actually are peer reviewed (Hafer 507).
Within the research being done in favor of Intelligent Design, there is rarely any original
research. Most original research do not include descriptions of the scientific methods used, and
what experimental or quantitative results have been obtained. This method of observation and

Thomas

collection of evidence does not support sound science (Hafer 507). Tangible measurements and
quantifications are critical for the scientific process, and science cannot merely rest on
observational studies. Observation must be followed by measurement and quantification (Hafer
508).
All Christians are said to agree that the universe is designed, because Christians believe
that the world is Gods creation (Bishop). However, the nature of design varies within a
theological worldview. Many Christians are strong supporters of Intelligent Design as the
explanation origins, but Bishop wonders if Christians should actually be supportive of this
concept. Intelligent Design only focuses on scientific methods as the means for detecting
intelligence in the design of nature. Intelligent Design does not rely on the Bible and theology for
its approach to origins.
Another potential problem arising in Intelligent Design as a theological view is the
possibility of a deceptive deity acting as the designer. For Christians and non-Christians alike,
the argument of an intelligent designer opens up the possibility of a deity as a designer. And if
humans cannot trust the designer, then they cannot trust the clues that the designer may leave
behind to suggest Intelligent Design (Doran 226).
According to Petto, many traditional creationists gave up promoting a strict biblical
creationism in the science class in favor of a version of ID (20). However, although strict
biblical creationism has been dropped in the argument for Intelligent Design, many of the
original conclusions of creation scientists are still present. Bateman and Moran-Ellis refer to
Intelligent Design as creationism in a cheap tuxedo and creationism dressed in the robes of
science (271). Intelligent Design seems to initially appeal to Christians because ID favors a

Thomas

supernatural explanation for how biological species came into being. Christians like to have a
view that allows for supernatural intervention in the world (Hafer 511).
In the end, Intelligent Design does not hold up against either science or theology. What
Intelligent Design claims to be able to do is astounding. It claims to be able to demonstrate
scientific evidence of design in the biological world without needing to know anything about
who the designer is. In a different Dembski article, he argues that Intelligent Design is the
bridge between science and theology (Doran 224). However, the claims are too good to be
true, and do not have the substance necessary to be considered sound scientific exploration.
As soon as Intelligent Design advocates such as Dembski advocate that ID has
theological implications, and also claims that this designer can be associated with God, the ID
argument becomes dangerous (Doran 231). The idea of deception that was discussed earlier does
not fit with the character of the God of the Bible. The God of Christianity would not deceive
people as they look for evidence of His design. Intelligent Design falls into the pitfall of being
associated with Christianity. The true theory of ID is non-religious, but Christians have adopted
Intelligent Design as their own idea to support creationist ideas. The confusion regarding the true
claims made by Intelligent Design has ultimately hindered its impact in the scientific world.
In the past decade, proponents of intelligent design have attempted to distance themselves
from a publicly religious argument. However, the relationship between intelligent design and
creationism has not been lost. The foundation of Intelligent Design is inadmissibly religious,
even though its advocates do not specifically identify God as the designer. God is the most likely
designer, and ID advocates have been unable to divorce themselves from this argument (Tierney
et al. 45). Many ID advocates are coming at Intelligent Design from a religious paradigm, and
thus are unable to disassociate the designer from God.

Thomas

Intelligent Design is ultimately too good to be true in terms of a theological view of the
origins of the earth. ID claims to be able to exist as a scientific research program because it does
not have to provide claims about the identity of the designer. However, this claim is false,
because Intelligent Design employs presuppositions about who the designer could be. ID
proponents also neglect the possibility of a deceptive designer, because even Dembski himself
admits it would thwart ID as a valid scientific program (Doran 233).
Christians would have to give up a lot of creationist views in order to accept Intelligent
Design. The possibility of a deceptive designer compromises the Christians ability to trust God,
which is the core of the Christian tradition. While science and theology can both exist in a
coherent worldview, Intelligent Design does not in fact build a bridge between the two (Doran
234). Intelligent Design cannot hold up as either a scientific view or a theological view, and thus
cannot be a true consideration for the earths origins.

Thomas

Works Cited
Bateman, Philip W., and Jo Moran-Ellis. The Science in the Intelligent Design Debate: Teach It
Like It Is. South African Journal of Science 103.7/8 (2007): 271-73. Academic Search
Complete [EBSCO]. Web. 4 May 2016.
Behe, Michael J. Intelligent Design. Darwins Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to
Evolution. Free Press, 1996. Print
Bishop, Robert C. Meyers Inference to Intelligent Design as the Best Explanation. BioLogos.
8 Sept. 2014. Web. 04 May 2016.
Dembski, William A. Intelligent Design. The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest
Questions About Intelligent Design. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Print.
Doran, Chris. Intelligent Design: Its Just Too Good to Be True. Theology and Science 8.2
(2010): 223-37. Academic Search Complete [EBSCO]. Web. 4 May 2016.
Hafer, Abby. No Data Required: Why Intelligent Design is Not Science. The American
Biology Teacher 77.7 (2015): 507-13. Academic Search Complete [EBSCO]. Web. 4
May 2016.
Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. PBS. NOVA and Vulcan Productions Inc., 13 Nov,
2007. Web. 4 May 2016.
Miller, Kenneth R. Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for Americas Soul. New York:
Penguin Group, 2008. Print.
Petto, Andrew J. Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design. Basics in Human Evolution.
By Michael P. Meuhlenbein. Elsevier Science, 2015. Print.
Tierney, W. G., and K. A. Holley. Intelligent Design and the Attack on Scientific Inquiry.

Thomas 10
Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies 8.1 (2008): 39-49. Academic Search Complete
[EBSCO]. Web. 4 May 2016.