Brett Rowland recently wrote about the ongoing controversy over
the teaching of intelligent design. I respond to the criticisms
offered against it. First, have you noticed that the critics of
intelligent design (ID) never tell you what it is? As some of these
critics are educators, it seems unconscionable to me to
intentionally misrepresent a topic and then attack it as something
that it is not. ID is accused of teaching religion. Let’s consider
that criticism.
Editor,
Brett Rowland recently wrote about the ongoing controversy over the teaching of intelligent design. I respond to the criticisms offered against it. First, have you noticed that the critics of intelligent design (ID) never tell you what it is? As some of these critics are educators, it seems unconscionable to me to intentionally misrepresent a topic and then attack it as something that it is not. ID is accused of teaching religion. Let’s consider that criticism.
ID investigates natural objects and considers the origin alternatives of necessity, chance and design. Michael Dembski (in The Design Revolution, 2004) provides the examples of a calculator, a roulette wheel, and an agitator to clarify chance and design. When “2+2=” is punched into the calculator, it must always display “4.” That is necessity; there is only on possible result. When you spin a roulette wheel, the ball can land in any one of the 38 slots. Scientists assign probabilities (a number) to the likelihood of events occurring. Because there is the same probability of the ball falling into any of the slots, this condition results in a completely random arrangement. But when the agitator operates under the influence of gravity, something more interesting occurs. The rocks become sorted, based on size, from top to bottom (largest on top). This result shows both necessity (the sorting) and chance (the arrangement in any given layer) at the same time. Do you see any religion in this so far? Let’s proceed.
Some objects we study in science show neither necessity nor chance/randomness. They show specified complexity. Specified complexity is defined through five concepts: complexity – a huge number of possible outcomes; independent patterns – that is, our knowledge of resulting patterns does not affect the probability of an event; probabilistic resources – conditions that affect the likelihood that an even will occur at least once; specificational complexity – how we can define the results of a sequence of events – like ‘all heads’ (H) for a series of coin tosses, versus ‘HHTHTTHHT’; and universal probability bound – a limit scientists give to the probability of an event occurring by considering the number of particles in the universe, how quickly they can interact, and the age of the universe. How are we doing? Any religion yet?
Armed with these tools, we approach Dembski’s explanatory filter, which permits us to distinguish between necessity, chance and design. We ask first, is a pattern the only possible outcome? If it is, the pattern is necessary and we need look no further for an explanation of its cause. If not, we ask, is the pattern complex? If it is not, then chance is its logical explanation. If it is complex, we next ask, is the pattern specified? If it is not, the cause is also deemed as chance. If however, the pattern is not necessary, is complex and is specified, the explanation is design. This methodology is used throughout science – in archaeology, forensics and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Any religion yet?
And there is much more of value to our students in teaching the method of scientific inquiry called intelligent design.
In my classes on logic, we expose the fallacy of turning your opponent’s position into something foolish and then attacking that imaginary argument. It’s always easier to win a debate that way, right? This is called the straw man fallacy. It seems quite clear to me that the attacks on ID are a prime example of the straw man fallacy. When the critics of ID attack it for what it really is, then maybe the 90 percent of the American population that doubts the validity of Darwinism evolution will pay some attention to them.
Edward Huston, Hollister
