The Lost World of Genesis One (21 page)

One of the primary ways the Intelligent Design movement has
offered evidence for its contention is through the identification of
what they call irreducible complexity.2 They have identified structures that require a multitude of parts that need to be functional all
at once for the structure to continue to exist and do its job, therefore concluding that the structure could not have evolved one piece
at a time. They make no consistent claims about the nature of the
designer. They believe that these irreducible complexities show the
weaknesses of Neo-Darwinian evolution (the reigning paradigm
for understanding biological origins), but they have not gotten to
the point where they have alternative scientific mechanisms to
promote. In other words, ID does not offer a theory of origins. It
offers conclusions from observations in the natural world and posits that those observations argue against the reigning paradigm of
Neo-Darwinism. It must be noted, however, that even as many
might grant weaknesses in the reigning paradigm, ID would only
be one among many possible alternatives.

Protagonists of ID would like their claims and particularly
their critique accepted as science. In the political realm, some
have tried to force its adoption as an alternative to be offered in
public education. The difficulty they face is that if there is intelligent design, there must logically be an intelligent designer.
Given the existence of a designer, it would logically be inferred
that such a designer is not simply playing games or being artistic,
but is working with a purpose.' Science is not capable of exploring
a designer or his purposes. It could theoretically investigate design but has chosen not to by the parameters it has set for itself
(back to the layer cake analogy). Therefore, while alleged irreducible complexities and mathematical equations and probabilities
can serve as a critique for the reigning paradigm, empirical science would not be able to embrace Intelligent Design because science has placed an intelligent designer outside of its parameters as
subject to neither empirical verification nor falsification.

In short, teleological aspects (exploration of purpose) are not in
the realm of science as it has been defined and therefore could not
be factored into a scientific understanding. ID could be considered
as contributing to the scientific enterprise when it is offering a
critique of the reigning paradigm because it offers scientific observations in its support. But it does not contribute to the advance
of scientific understanding because it does not offer an alternative
that is scientifically testable and falsifiable. Its basic premise is a
negative one: that "naturalistic mechanisms (i.e., natural selection, random mutation) cannot fully account for life as we know
it."4 ID does not deny the operation of naturalistic mechanismsit simply finds them insufficient to offer a comprehensive explanation of all observable phenomena. It cannot offer at present a
scientific hypothesis proposing alternatives. Consequently it can
only offer inferences regarding science that can only be tracked
currently by leaving the realm of science. Nevertheless proponents of ID would make a lesser claim that design itself is detectable
and researchable and therefore can be subject to scientific investigation-the design element, not the nature or existence of the
designer. They offer no theory of origins nor do they attempt to
interpret the Bible or contribute to theological thinking.

Some would say that it is just plain and simple logic that some
things are the product of design.

Design seems to be a common thread that runs through the
whole of nature. Time and again, in cases that have been
cataloged since the dawn of biology, nature reveals that (1)
its inhabitants are remarkably suited to fit their environment
and (2) the various parts and systems that constitute organisms are remarkably suited to work in concert with one
another.5

No one finds a watch on the beach and thinks that it is a relic
of nature; no one looks at Mount Rushmore and concludes that it
is the result of wind and erosion. But when these products of intelligent design are recognized, the process to understand them
becomes a historical one, not a scientific one. To recognize them
as products of design is to remove them from the arena of scientific investigation.

Intelligent Design has been criticized as being a God of the
gaps approach. "God of the gaps" says that if there is no known
naturalistic explanation of an observable phenomenon, that phenomenon is attributable to God. The unfortunate result of this
way of thinking is that as scientific knowledge grows and more
phenomena are explained, the role of God shrinks away. While
ID vehemently denies being a God of the gaps approach, the logical hurdle is that if they believe that naturalistic explanations are
insufficient, design in nature can only be established beyond reasonable doubt if all naturalistic explanations have been ruled out.' Proving a negative logically requires that all possibilities have
been considered, which in turn requires that all possibilities are
known. As a result design cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt (it would be presumptuous to suggest that knowledge
is so exhaustive that all possibilities are known), and it can only
fall back on the claim that the currently proposed naturalistic
mechanisms do not suffice. Design is thus attributed to observable phenomena that carry characteristic hallmarks of design (in
an ID way of understanding) that cannot be explained by naturalistic mechanisms. This list ends up looking very much like the
God of the gaps list.

Neo-Darwinism (N-D) is in no more attractive a position.
While ID says that irreducible complexity provides evidence for
design, N-D swings the pendulum in the opposite direction. It
responds to the claims of irreducible complexity by proposing
components that might have come together to produce what now
appears to be irreducibly complex. Even if such an explanation
cannot be found, or is criticized as being far-fetched, the underlying assumption is that there must be one (presumably because all
phenomena must be the result of naturalistic mechanisms). Both
then are ultimately based on metaphysical premises. ID has defined itself to allow a metaphysical acceptance of purpose (teleology), while the proponents of N-D presuppose by definition a
metaphysical acceptance of "dysteleology"-that there can be no
purpose or goal. In effect then ID suggests that there is warrant for
opening scientific investigation to teleological possibilities. Mainstream science contends that dysteleology must be retained in its
self-definition. At this point they are not willing to rewrite the
current rules of science to allow for either intelligence or design.
Having said this, it must be reiterated that whatever definitions of
science may be and whatever scientific methods may be allowed or
disallowed, the existence of purpose is unaffected.

Perhaps there are other naturalistic mechanisms beyond random mutation and natural selection that offer better explanations
for observable phenomena (and along the way show more promise
of explaining how presumably irreducibly complex phenomena
came to be). Just such approaches are constantly being proposed
and developed. What has been referred to as "meta-Darwinism"7
includes a variety of (independent) proposals for naturalistic
mechanisms that do not supplant natural selection and random
mutation, but relegate them to a different role in the developmental process of organisms. These proposed mechanisms include
endosymbiosis, developmental mutations (evo-devo), multilevel
selection and complexity theory (self-organization). Of course
these do not resolve the metaphysical issues if they still operate
with dysteleological presuppositions. Some, to their credit, attempt to be neutral with respect to teleology. The stricture remains against making any explicit appeal to purpose in scientific
explanations. To appeal to purpose is to shift to a different kind of
explanation (e.g., metaphysical, theological).

Consequently we find that even as ID proposes that N-D fails
to provide adequate naturalistic mechanisms to explain the existence of "irreducible complexities," the response of science has not
been to admit that there must be a designer. Instead critique from
a variety of sources has prompted continuing work to offer alternative naturalistic mechanisms that will remedy the inadequacies
of N-D. This is how science works-it seeks out other scientific
explanations. If scientists simply threw up their hands and admitted that a metaphysical, teleological explanation was necessary,
they would be departing from that which is scientific.

The question is whether we can assume such hard and fast lines
of distinction between the scientific and the metaphysical. It is
true that observations can be put into one category or the other,
but the fact is that such a categorization is artificial because none of us has a worldview comprised of only one of them. Science and
metaphysics blend together in life. Can science be taught with no
metaphysical aspect? Should metaphysics be isolated from the sciences? These questions will be dealt with in future chapters.

In conclusion, this chapter has introduced ID as both a critique
of N-D, in which sense it alleges to be scientific, but also as offering an understanding of the world that is ultimately teleologicalpurposeful-in which sense it departs from the realm of scientific
investigation and theorization.

The view of Genesis offered in this book is also teleological but
accepts that all of creation is the result of God's handiwork,
whether naturalistic mechanisms are identifiable or not, and
whether evolutionary processes took place or not. God has designed all that there is and may have brought some of his designs
into existence instantaneously, whereas others he may have chosen to bring into existence through long, complicated processes.
Neither procedure would be any less an act of God.

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Behe, Michael. Darwin's Black Box. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996.

Dembski, William. Intelligent Design. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999.

Fowler, Thomas B., and Daniel Kuebler. The Evolution Controversy: A Survey of Competing Theories. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2007.

House, H. Wayne, ed. Intelligent Design 101. Grand Rapids: Kre-
gel, 2008.

Johnson, Philip. Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1991.

O'Leary, Denyse. By Design or By Chance? Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2004.