When scientists
study a feature of nature (a star, bacteria, whale, biochemical system,...)
they can ask about its origin. Was it produced by
design,
either by
• natural
process because, before history began, the universe was cleverly designed
so this would happen, and/or
• natural
process that, during history, was guided in a natural-appearing way
that is not scientifically detectable, or
•• detectable design-directed
action during history, by a natural agent or supernatural agent,
which was necessary because undirected
natural process would not produce the feature? ( this
third possibility seems to be the most common meaning for a theory of "intelligent
design" )
• Or was there
no design of any type?
In this page, these four
types of design are examined, and then relationships between design
and creation are explored by asking Why is it controversial?
four types of design
If you receive a radio signal — 2,
3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17,... — and you think "this long string
of prime numbers probably was not produced by undirected
natural process," you are proposing a theory of Intelligent
Design.
To explain the origin of a feature
(an object, organism, system, situation,...) the only two possibilities are
non-Design and Design:
N. non-Design,
with undirected natural process producing
the feature (*);
D. Design (and
production) by an agent using Design-directed
action that converts a Design-idea into the reality of a designed
feature; more specifically, origin by Design-action can be due
to
Ds) Design
(and creation) by a supernatural
agent (God,...) using Design-directed action, or
Dn) Design
(and construction) by a natural agent (a
human,...) using Design-directed action.
* Production
of a feature by what appears to be undirected natural
process (by what is commonly called non-Design)
could be due to:
Ni) design-directed
action occurring at the beginning of history in a design
of nature (Why do we have sunshine?)
and converting this design-idea into reality (at the initial instant
of time) which eventually results in production of a feature by
undirected natural
process, and/or (*)
Ns) a
gentle guiding of
natural process by a supernatural agent, in design-directed "guiding" action
that occurs during history but is not empirically detectable because
the gentle guiding-action blends smoothly with the usual workings
of nature so it appears normal and natural, or
Nu) a natural
process that actually is undesigned, unguided, and undirected.
Therefore, of the five
possibilities — Natural-initial design (Ni), Natural-supernatural
design (Ns),
Detectable-supernatural Design (Ds), Detectable-natural
Design (Dn), and Natural-undesigned (Nu) — four
are design and only one (Nu) is non-design.
* The "Ni...
and/or Ns" above leads
to speculations about other combinations: Does "Ni without Ns" or
"Ns without Ni" actually occur? and if either does occur, how should
it be categorized? These
theological questions won't be discussed in this page, but I'll assume
the answers are "yes" and "no" so we can have "only Ni" or "Ni
followed by Ns". }
When you're
reading the rest of this section, you may begin wondering "why is he
making it so complicated by distinguishing between four types of design,
and between Design (specific
with a narrow definition) and design (general with a broad definition)?" My
answer is that these distinctions are important and are necessary, because
without
them
our thinking
can be
illogical
and our communicating can be confused. Einstein said "we
should make things as simple as possible, but no simpler," and
making it "as simple as possible" requires
these distinctions. If you read carefully while thinking, you'll see
that this system of terms (with four types of design, which include
two types of Design) is necessary and it does make sense; this
system will be useful because it will improve our thinking and communicating,
helping us think more logically and communicate more clearly. / Or
you can skip ahead to Part 2, to see Why it's controversial
— Is it creationism?
Design (specific,
narrowly defined) and design (general, broadly defined)
For improved precision, I'll use words that are Capitalized and regular to
distinguish between Intelligent Design (defined
narrowly) and intelligent design (defined broadly).
In this page, and in most other
contexts, a Design theory is a claim
that a feature was produced by empirically detectable Design-directed
action during history (by Dn-or-Ds, with Design-action
by a natural agent or supernatural agent) rather than Ni (design of
nature, which is not during history),
Ns (supernatural design-directed guidance of natural process, which is not
empirically detectable), or Nu (which is not
by design-directed action).
My definition of design is
broader; it includes Ds-or-Dn (Design) and also Ni and Ns (which are
not Design but are design), so design includes everything except Nu.
The table
below shows the four types of design (in
the three columns with a white YES) and the three
questions that are used to define design (Does
the production of a feature involve design-directed action?)
and Design (Does the Design-action occur
during history and, in principle, could
it be empirically
detectable?).
Ds.
Design-action by supernatural agent
Dn. Design-action by natural agent
Ni. natural process is initially designed
Ns. natural process with
supernatural guiding-action
Nu. natural process that is undesigned
and (in history) is unguided & undirected
|
design and Design
defined in terms of
three questions
|
design
|
|
Design
|
non-Design
|
Ds or Dn
|
Ns
|
Ni
|
Nu
|
design-directed
action?
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
no
|
occurs
during history?
|
YES
|
YES
|
no
|
—
|
empirically
detectable?
|
YES
|
no
|
no
|
—
|
|
testing for Design and design: Using
my definitions, a feature was produced by either Design (Ds-or-Dn,
by detectable "design-directed action" which is "B")
or non-Design (Ni, Ns, or Nu,
by undetectable "undirected natural process" which is "A"),
so Design
and non-Design are mutually exclusive, and
evidence for one is evidence against the other. By logically using
this mutually exclusive relationship, can Design be
scientifically detected? / But design includes
Design and more, so evidence against Design (during
history and detectable, Ds-or-Dn) is not evidence against the other
two types of design, by design
before history (Ni) or by undetectable design-action (Ns). Why
is there a "?" in one of the cells? (three explanations
for a "just right" universe)
Thus, when testing for design
a false negative is possible, if we conclude "there
is insufficient evidence for Design (Ds-or-Dn)" but in reality there
is design (Ni and/or Ns).
We can also reach wrong conclusions about
Design (Ds-or-Dn) with either false negatives or false positives, because
there
is a continuum
between undetectable & detectable, and scientists differ
in their evaluations of currently available evidence, and because our
estimates for "detectable" Design can change with improved research
(with new observations
and/or analysis)
that produces changes in scientific knowledge.
Because design includes Design
and more, my definition of undirected (= undetectable in principle) is based on what
we "know" (epistemology)
rather than what actually exists (ontology). And
my criterion for distinguishing between directed and guided is detectability,
so an undirected natural process — which
(as in Ni, Ns, or Nu) is not directed in a detectable way — might
be supernaturally guided in an undetectable
way.
My definition also limits guiding-action to a supernatural
agent, even though the Design-action
of a natural agent might not be detectable (as in the case of a skillful criminal, stage magician, or special effects moviemaker), and a supernatural guiding-action
might
be detectable if it produces a highly improbable sequence of events
(like 20 consecutive wins in roulette) even if each individual event
appears to be "undirected
natural process" that is undetectable. Although I define events as being either detectable or undetectable, we should realize that in reality the actual degree of detectability can vary along a continuum.
another definition: In science, random means only "we cannot predict the result." This definition is epistemological, consistent with the fact that science does not say anything, yes or no, about whether God can predict or control random events.
a clarification: To avoid a possible misconception,
we should recognize that undirected natural process, with no agent-action,
is not necessarily random with no direction. For example,
the path of a baseball is not random; this is why it can be chased and caught by an outfielder. And in biology, natural selection that is undirected (by human agents) can lead to directional change in a population, causing it to change
in ways that are beneficial for the survival and reproduction of
its members. When this occurs in different situations during the history
of life on earth, it can produce convergent evolution in different
species, which tends to move populations in directions that Daniel Dennett calls "good
tricks" for survival and reproduction.
When we think about the
limitations of definitions, as outlined in the paragraphs above, our
efforts to "categorize and define" can be conceptually useful
by stimulating our analytical thinking about similarities and differences.
The table below describes 4 possible examples of design: 2 are labeled "if..." because we cannot know if God exists and if natural-appearing events are guided always or sometimes or never; and 1 is labeled "if..." because we don't know if life originated by undirected natural process (unguided or guided) or natural design-directed action (as in directed panspermia) or supernatural design-directed action that might appear miraculous. Notice the "appearing" (which describes what we observe-and-infer) in natural-appearing and miraculous-appearing; theists believe that both involve a supernatural God, if God is involved in creating-and-sustaining natural process, and maybe guiding natural process.
4 possible examples of design (a label of
"if" acknowledges that "we don't know if...") |
epistemology: in principle,
can we detect the design? |
natural-appearing unguided mutation (if...) - Ni? |
no - undetectable (undirected) |
natural-appearing guided mutation (if...) - Ns |
no - undetectable (undirected) |
natural-appearing (e.g. building a house) - Dn |
yes - detectable (directed) |
miraculous-appearing origin of life (if...) - Ds |
maybe - detectable (directed) |
Using the definitions-and-abbreviations above, for the origin of a particular
feature, "supernatural design-action during history" is "s" (as
in Ns or Ds) and "no supernatural design-action during history"
is "not s" as
in Nu or Dn. In an atheistic worldview, Nu (nature that is initially undesigned, and then is unguided & undirected)
is necessary for maintaining the worldwiew, while Ni, Ns and Ds are impossible. A deistic worldview
proposes Ni with God designing nature (so Nu is impossible) but not being
active in history (so Ns and Ds are impossible). A theistic worldview
proposes Ni (thus rejecting Nu) and also proposes Ns and maybe
Ds; in
a Judeo-Christian worldview, based on the Bible, only Nu is impossible. { You
can see these options, for each worldview, clarified in a table. }
Notice that, contrary to unfortunately
common stereotypes, Design does not mean "involving the supernatural"
(because although Ds has this combination, Dn doesn't), and non-Design does
not mean "not involving the supernatural" (although Nu has this combination,
Ni and Ns don't); this
is shown by the "mixing" that occurs in
Dn (with Design by a natural agent) and in Ni or Ns (since
each is non-Design that involves design by a supernatural agent).
What
is Intelligent Design?
Usually, an Intelligent
Design Theory is defined as a claim about detectable Design-action
during history, a claim that "Ds-or-Dn has occurred." But Ni also
requires design that is extremely intelligent, and all theists claim
this has occurred. Ns is also believed by all theists
and is very important theologically and practically (as in our daily
prayers) but it's undetectable so its scientific importance is minimal. For
example, an FAQ for
the pro-Design Access Research Network claims that "conventional
theistic evolution is incompatible with Intelligent Design, since it...
denies that God's creative activity can be empirically detected." But
this definition is too narrow for a generalized "intelligent
design" because theistic evolution does propose intelligent design
in Ni and also perhaps Ns.
note: This system of terms — distinguishing
between Design (specific) and design (general) — is my own system. Other
authors have not used it in the past, and probably most will not use it in
the
future,
although I hope the ideas in it will be considered and
accepted. The rest of this page will use the system's two terms consistently,
although in other pages "design" could refer to either Design or design, and
(as with other authors) you'll have to think about the context and decide the
intended
meaning.
Why is it controversial? (Intelligent
Design and creationism)
Theories of Design can be evaluated using the logical
methods of science, and are common in science. Most Design theories are
judged on their scientific merit, but some people claim that some Design theories
are "not scientific" and should therefore be excluded from science. Why?
Concerns about Design occur when
Design-action seems unfamiliar. In some situations (Dn) the
action and agent are familiar (as when a beaver builds a dam, or humans make
faces
on
Mount
Rushmore) but in other cases the Design-action is unfamiliar and it could
be either natural (for example, if space aliens produced Designed features
by using their unfamiliar advanced technologies) or supernatural (as in Biblical
miracles). For most opponents of Design, questions occur when Design-action
is unfamiliar and it could be supernatural. In these situations (possibly Ds rather
than Dn)
the main concerns are religious — although critics also have
questions about whether design can be detected using scientific methods —
and a common claim is that a Design theory is a creation theory. Is
this claim justified?
For any question about Design,
in any area (radioastronomy, homicide, origins,...), we can view the scientific
inquiry as a two-stage process: first we ask "Was there Design-directed
action?", and then we investigate the details. A basic Design
theory claims only that Design-directed action did occur (the first
stage) but does not try to explain the details (who, why, how,...) of Design-and-production. Of
course, we should evaluate a Design theory based on what it does claim (that
Design occurred) instead of what it does not claim (that it can explain
the details).
In origins, a Design theory
is not a creation theory. A basic Design theory can be supplemented
with details (about the Designer's identity and actions, about who, why,
how,...) to form a variety of theories about supernatural creation (by
God or...) or natural non-creation (as in a
theory proposing that evolution on earth was Intelligently Designed and directed
by space aliens who evolved before us). A Design theory — which
does not propose divine action, but does acknowledge it as a possibility — does
not try to distinguish between creation and non-creation. Instead,
a Design theory just claims that "Design-directed action did occur."
A basic (non-supplemented) Design
theory is limited to claims that can be scientifically evaluated. In
a Response
to Critics, Michael Behe explains: "Most people
(including myself) will attribute the design to God, based in part on other,
non-scientific judgments they have made. ... From a scientific point of view,
the question [who is the designer?] remains open. ... The biochemical evidence
strongly indicates design, but does not show who the designer was." As
a person, Behe says "I think the designer was God." But as
a scientist, he says "the evidence for design doesn't show who the designer
was."
analogy and consistency (in
Design and non-Design)
analogy: We can
view a naturalistic theory of non-Design (such as chemical evolution or
neo-Darwinian biological evolution) as being mainly
religious — because it supports deism or theism (if a clever
design of nature seems to be necessary for it to happen) or atheism (if
it seems to make God unnecessary) — or as mainly
scientific even though it may have some religious implications. Similarly,
we can view a Design theory as being mainly religious or mainly
scientific. In open-minded science, a scientist uses evidence
and logic to evaluate "mere science" theories (such as mere
evolution or mere Design) that are
considered, during a process of objective evaluation, to be mainly scientific
with minimal religious implications.
consistency: Supporters
of non-Design and Design should ask themselves, "Are we being objective
and logically consistent when we're describing our theory and their theory? Or
are we trying to make ourselves look more scientifically rational by claiming
that our own theory is mainly scientific, and their theory is
mainly religious?"
Although objectivity is a noble
goal in science, controversial claims for "Design-directed action during
history" are often evaluated, either intentionally or unconsciously,
using a complex blending of criteria that are both scientific and theological. {theology
is one aspect of the cultural-personal factors that
influence science}
For an atheist, only one conclusion — a
totally naturalistic history — is theologically acceptable, so any
claim that might imply divine Design-action must be rejected. { possibilities
for design in five worldviews }
But for a Judeo-Christian theist
who believes the actions of God are not limited to a sustaining and guiding
of natural process, who believes that God can also do miracles, claims for
divine Design-action should be theologically acceptable. All theists
should believe that God intelligently designed the universe. But in
my opinion there isn't any compelling theological reason to believe that
God did (or didn't) design the universe to be totally self-assembling by
natural process, and this is the question being asked in the most hotly disputed
claims for Intelligent Design.
As explained in Theology
of Theistic Evolution,
Instead
of criticizing either view as being "less worthy" it seems wise
to adopt a humble attitude... and decide that God's plan for design-and-creation
was wonderful and is worthy of our praise, whether he did it with two modes
of action [both natural and miraculous] or just one. When science
helps us discover any aspect of God's clever design for self-assembly in
nature... we should praise God. We should also praise God for miracles,
in salvation history or formative history. Whether a feature of the
universe (stars or stardust, first life or complex life) was created by
natural process and/or by miracle, we can praise God for his intelligence,
power, and wisdom, for what he created and how he created it.
A
proponent of old-earth creation (or young-earth creation) should be willing to
praise God for designing a universe that was totally self-assembling by
natural process, with no formative miracles, in case this is how He did
it. Similarly, a proponent of evolutionary creation should be willing to
praise God for using both modes of creative action, for cleverly designing
nature to produce most phenomena without miracles, and for powerfully doing
miracles when natural process was not sufficient, since this might be the
way He did it.
We
should be appropriately humble about God's methods of creation. You
and I should say in public — and believe in private, in our hearts
and minds — that "IF God created using another method (differing
from the way I think He created), then God is worthy of our praise." But
this if-then humility is compatible with also explaining why we
think a particular view is most likely to be true. We can be humble
while we explain — using arguments based on theology and science,
based on our interpretations of scripture and nature — why we think
one view is more plausible than other views.