On the Origin of Life – Almost Certainly not by Intelligent Design

The belief in an intelligent designer began centuries ago when humankind began to be the dominant species of the animal kingdom. From the time of the creation of religion to its gradual differentiation, and then towards the beginnings of scientific creationist world views, we now are witnessing a supposed alternative to materialist evolution – intelligent design. A theory currently in crisis, intelligent design cannot yet provide a good analysis about the origin of life. Not only is it incoherent at its current development, but it also appeals and necessitates many ad-hoc assumptions for the theory to be fully realized. It is to no wonder that the majority of contemporary scientists do not take it seriously.

Intelligent design can be defined by its belief in the creation of the universe by some ‘intelligence’, and followed by evolution thereafter. Yet, it is sometimes argued amongst the scientific community whether these creationists* accept evolution at all. Its proponents “…claim that they can empirically distinguish intelligent design from that produced through natural processes (such as natural selection)” (Scott, 2005, p. 117). The theories utilized, however, are questionable, for its incoherence is conspicuously illogical.

Two of the currently well-known theories proposed by supporters of intelligent design are irreducible complexity and the design filter. Proposed by Michael Behe, a biochemist, irreducible complexity explains that “…certain biological systems

[*Advocates of intelligent design often discern themselves from religion and past creationist theories, emphasizing that they are not creationists. (I shall argue its contrary in the later part of my argument.)]

are too complex to have arisen by chance mutation plus natural selection” (Frank, 2004, p. 111). This idea can be said to have arisen from the design filter theory, a concept developed by William A. Dembski, a mathematician and theologian. The design filter theory explains that “…design can be detected through the elimination of chance and law hypotheses…” (Peterson, 2002, p. 14). The problem with the design filter is that the conclusion drawn is characterized by a position of theoretical and scientific ignorance. If a system or structure seems currently unexplainable by natural means, this does not mean than an appeal to a designer is correct, for scientific inquiry will most likely yield better or more revolutionary explanations for seemingly irreducibly complex structures and systems in the future. When Behe proclaimed the flagellum and the immune system as irreducibly complex in his controversial book, Darwin’s Black Box, all he proved is his “… [inability] to provide an empirically adequate account of transitional forms that could explain these structures” (Peterson, 2002, p. 15). In fact, much recent research 1,2,3 on the flagellum has shown that the flagellum can, indeed, evolve through natural selection and chance mutation. The theory of irreducible complexity was, according to advocates of intelligent design, supposed to revolutionize biology. Yet all it has done is create resistance towards the possibility of intelligent design, as well as the usability of the design filter.

The logical flaws and fallacies committed by proponents of intelligent design and its theory reduce the theory’s quality of being able to explain the origin of life.

The first problem, when arguing for intelligent design, is that “…signs of physical order in the universe are [recognized as] evidence of design by purposeful mentation” (Frank, 2004, p. 112). As discussed by Frank, an argument from asserted order is invalid. He explains that if order were a form of evidence for design, then we must be able to use this hypothesis and examine other universes, to see if orderliness is a common aspect. Obviously, however, we do not yet have the privilege of examining universes other than our own (if they exist at all). Could disorderliness also not be a sign of design? Works of art created by artists such as Picasso have a tendency to be disorderly, i.e. images depicted in those artworks do not necessarily conform to the appearance of objects in reality. Therefore, “…to assert that physical order is necessarily a design principle of the universe merely begs the question” (Frank, 2004, p.112).

Other issues that follow are “…circularity in the argument from order” (Frank, 2004, p. 114). The first issue is the analogy of orderliness in the universe to the orderliness of a human artifact. As Frank discusses, the nature of the argument is such that a microscopic version of orderliness “… [reproducing] orderly and periodic motions…” (Frank, 2004, p. 114) – such as a clock – represents macroscopic orderliness and complexity in the universe, thus necessitating the presence of a designer. However, one must understand that the artifact was itself manufactured by someone who used his/her understanding of the orderliness of the universe to create orderly artifacts. “Therefore, to recruit the physical order and mechanism in nature to support a conclusion of purposeful design in nature by analogy to human purposeful design inheres an invalidating circularity” (Frank, 2004, p. 114). Likewise, when Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity is examined, with respect to his comparison of a flagellum to a car – having a motor, gears and other parts similar to a mechanical system – the theory is found to be circular.

The other circular problem has to do with verifiable certainty. That is, briefly described, that one can verify his/her certainty of whether an artifact is purposefully designed by some individual. As Frank has revealed, the constants and orderliness of the universe lack verifiable certainty, and thus design can only be inferred. Therefore, looking back at Behe’s famous analogy of a mousetrap to the flagellum, one understands that there is verifiable certainty of design for the mousetrap, but no obvious certainty for the flagellum, or any other illusionary irreducibly complex structure.

The other circular issue is that of developmental intelligence. Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, examines the idea that if intelligence is understood to be evolutionary in nature, did the intelligence of the designer also evolve, or did it always exist? This, then, begs two questions: what kinds of principles and laws are the designer restricted to in order to evolve and to have such intelligence to design the universe? Can we measure the designer’s intelligence quantitatively? If the designer exists outside the natural world, then this designer is as good as not existent, for if this designer were supernatural, then intelligent design ultimately does not explain what is most important to its theory – the designer.

The next logical flaw of intelligent design is its proponents’ resistance to methodological naturalism, as “…opposition to methodological naturalism is central to [Intelligent Design] rhetoric” (Peterson, 2002, p. 9). Since science is about systematically searching for greater understanding about the universe, with respect to the collection of empirical data, science must not limit itself to being “…a form of implicit atheism… [and prohibit] reference to God or other supernatural entities in any scientific explanation” (Peterson, 2002, p. 9). Yet, as discussed earlier on, it will be further emphasized that the question of a designer’s presence is questionable and incoherent in terms of contemporary argument. If not methodological naturalism, shall it be methodological supernaturalism? Acquiring knowledge and advice from priests and other religious authorities is questionable in itself for the source of the information cannot be verified as the messages come from a supernatural source that cannot be identified by naturalistic means. In addition, this knowledge, meaning justifiable propositions, from religious authorities is not knowledge at all, but myth.

The last erroneous argument in favor of intelligent design, with regard to an explanation of the origin of life, is “[t]he argument for physical improbability” (Frank, 2004, p. 122). This argument explains that the physical constants of our universe is so finely tuned that any alteration to any of these values will cause the entire universe to cease to exist. Yet, one has to wonder if only this set of values can exist, and that all other varying sets of physical constants are non-existent, or at least improbable. Although a continuing controversy exists in the field of physics, many physicists (such as Einstein) seek a ‘theory of everything’, to explain cosmological evolution by naturalistic means, and to explain all natural phenomenon in a more encompassing theory that combines two incompatible theories: Newton’s law of gravity and Einstein’s theory of relativity. Currently, however, none of these theories are fully developed. Frank explains it this way: “[a]n argument from unexplained physical constants is thus indistinguishable from ‘wishful thinking,’ and rather represents yet one more fall back position in the continual retreat of rational faith…” (Frank, 2004, p. 122).

If advocates of intelligent design wish to be taken seriously by the majority of the scientific community, they must establish research programs. If this were a scientific hypothesis, then therefore this science must be “…characterized by …research programs” (Peterson, 2002, p. 11). According to Krauss, however, (a physicist and author at Case Western Reserve),

“…proponents of intelligent design have not engaged in the traditional process of scientific publishing. In a survey of 10 million articles in 20 major science journals over the past dozen years … a colleague of [mine] found 115,000 articles with "evolution" as a keyword. Of those, "intelligent design" was mentioned in 88. All but 11 of those mentions were in articles about engineering rather than biology … Of the remaining 11, eight were critical of intelligent design and three referred to conference proceedings rather than peer-reviewed journal articles.” 4

In this context, Peterson would most likely consider their research programs for intelligent design as degenerative, having neither “…hypotheses repeatedly confirmed, [discover] unexpected novel facts… explain… phenomena accounted by competitor theories, [nor]… [explain] phenomena that competing theories cannot explain” (Peterson, 2002, p. 11).

In order for intelligent design to realize its full potential for revolutionizing scientific inquiry, it necessitates a designer – most likely a religious one. Intelligent design must explain the nature of the designer, for this is crucial to the whole theory of intelligent design. However, since “[i]ntelligent design theorists… consistently [resist] reasoned speculations on the nature of the designer, claiming that this lies beyond the scope of [intelligent design theorists] as a science” (Peterson, 2002, p. 17), then only religion can account for the nature of this supposed designer. Though these theorists assert their independence from religion, intelligent design seems more like a plan to bring God back into science. (Peterson 2002) Yet, it is widely known among public intellectuals (such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris) that religion is irrational at its most fundamental level.

One of the biggest criticisms against religion is its constant usage of ad-hoc hypotheses, claiming that these hypotheses are facts without a doubt. The rationality of religious beliefs (such as the supposedly positive effects of intercessory prayer on physical health5 and religion’s effect on societal health6) shall not be considered here, for it is commonly understood as irrational at its core. Instead, I shall consider the rather philosophical, yet somewhat scientific, argument that attempts to combine theology and science.

The argument that “[l]aw as the relation between God and created reality” (Zylstra, 2004, p. 185) remains a rather persuasive argument for philosophy, but not for science. Briefly, the argument asserts that “...all of reality is contingent upon the Creator and that all law-governed reality is indicative of intelligent design. Natural laws, including biotic laws, are the very foundation for the presence and recognition of intelligent design in the world” (Zylstra, 2004, p.186). Following the latter portion of Zylstra’s argument, natural law does not necessarily indicate the presence of a Godly figure (or figures), and that the pursuits of science into the universe do not necessitate the existence of a designer.

If not intelligent design theory is dismissed, then what? Besides the newly formulated intelligent design theory, materialist theory is the obvious alternative that has been long accepted to be fact by the majority of the scientific community. Charles Darwin, with his controversial book The Origin of Species, has raised our consciousness about the power of natural selection, and the idea that seemingly irreducibly complex systems can indeed be arrived at through naturalistic evolution. Evolution accounts for the diversity of life and all life processes, and scientists must therefore learn to not discard evolutionary theory for some other appealing theory – such as intelligent design – just because of a few areas of science that remain undiscovered and are, as yet, unexplained.

One can reasonably conclude that intelligent design has not yet posed a threat to evolutionary theory in explaining the origin and progression of life. One must understand, however, that if intelligent design supporters do indeed find evidence that proves, without a doubt, that intelligent design is probable, then this seemingly illogical explanation can truly revolutionize how scientists explain natural phenomena. Yet, evolution has long stood against assertions of design, and has always triumphed in explaining unexplained phenomenon. If the development of an agenda is not crucial for theorists of intelligent design then this theory is most certainly unable to explain the origin of life, for its incoherence and necessity for ad-hoc assumptions is truly irrational to a well-informed scientist.



Footnotes

1. Cornelis G.R.(2006 November) The Type III Secretion Injectisome. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 4, 811-825
2. Pallen M. J., & Matzke N. J. (2006) From the Origin of Species to the Origin of Bacterial Flagella. Nature Reviews. 4 (10), 784-790
3. Katja S., Joachim F., Burnens A. P., & Kuhnert P. (2003) Detection of type III Secretion Genes as a General Indicator of Bacterial

virulence. Molecular and Cellular Probes. 17, 25-32
4. http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/0427forum.shtml
5. Shermer M. (2006) Religious Belief and Societal Health. Skeptic,12 (3), 20-21
6. Provonsha M. (2006) Religious Belief and Societal Health. Skeptic,12 (3), 26-35


References Cited: (APA Style)

Darwin, C. (1998) The Origin of Species. United States: Random House.
Dawkins R. (2006) The God Delusion. Great Britain: Transworld Publishers.
Dow. J. W. (2007, February 19). A Scientific Definition of Religion. ANPERE.
Frank P. (2004) On the Assumption of Design. Theology and Science, 2 (1).
Peterson G. R. (2002, March). The Intelligent-Design Movement: Science or Ideology? Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, 37 (1), 7-23.
Scott E.C. (2005). Evolution vs. Creationism. London, England: University of California Press.
Zylstra U. (2004, March). Reconsidering Fundamental Issues. Intelligent Design Theory; An Argument for Biotic Laws. Zygon: Journal of

Religion & Science, 39 (1), 175-191.