Transcript INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY

Professor Andrew Reynolds
Department of Philosophy &
Religious Studies
History and Philosophy of Science
INTELLIGENT DESIGN
THEORY
Bishop William Paley (1743-1805)
Natural Theology 1805
Argument from Design
Paley’s Design Argument
Paley’s Design Argument
• Chance?
or
Intelligent Design?
Paley’s Design Argument
• Human camera-lens
eye
• Chance?
or
Intelligent Design?
Darwin, The Origin of Species 1859
• Neither chance nor intelligent
design
• Paley’s argument a false
dichotomy
• 3rd option: Natural selection for
improved function originating
by blind mechanical forces
• Natural selection is ‘blind’ (no
forethought or plan) but not a
‘chance’ mechanism
Richard Dawkins (1941-), evolutionary
zoologist, Oxford
• “Darwin made it possible to be an
intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker 1986
Phillip Johnson, lawyer, scientific
creationist
Scientific Creationism =
The Genesis account of creation promoted
as a scientific theory/explanation
• Courts rule against its inclusion in public
school science classrooms on basis that it
is a Religious doctrine not a Scientific one,
thus in violation of establishment clause
separating church and state
Intelligent Design Theory
The cell is Darwin’s “black box”
Too complex to have evolved gradually,
piece by piece
Must have been created all at once
by some (unspecified) intelligent being.
But who?
Irreducible Complexity
• A system is irreducibly complex if it is
“composed of several well-matched,
interacting parts that contribute to a basic
function, wherein the removal of any of the
parts causes the system to effectively
cease functioning.” (Behe, 39)
Bacterial flagellum
Type III Secretory System
• Current locomotory
flagellum evolved
from a device
originally employed
for injection of toxins
into host cells
• An exaptation, to use
S. J. Gould’s term
Jonathan Wells, PhD in Molecular
Biology UCLA, anti-evolutionist
Rev. Moon
“[Father] frequently criticized
Darwin’s theory that living
things originated without
God’s purposeful,
creative activity…
Father’s words, my studies,
and my prayers
convinced me that I
should devote my life to
destroying Darwinism.”
• http://www.tparents.org/lib
rary/unification/talks/wells
/DARWIN.htm
Dover Area School Board,
Pennsylvania Trial 2005-2006
• School board
members force
inclusion of Intelligent
Design theory in ninth
grade biology class
• State judge rules ID is
not science but
creationism in
disguise
The “balanced” approach
• “Teach both sides”, Pres. George W. Bush
• Encourage critical thinking; improve
science education
• But where to draw the line?....
But what’s really going on
here?
Is this really a scientific debate?
To answer that we must turn to
the …
The Discovery Institute
• Center for the Renewal of Science &
Culture
• Conservative lobby group for ID Theory
• The ‘Wedge’ Document
• Five year plan to use ID as a ‘wedge’ to
split the tree of scientific materialism
(Darwinism)
• http://www.discovery.org/csc/
“The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is
one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built.
…Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under
wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of
modern science…thinkers such as Charles Darwin, …portrayed
humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or
machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal
forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the
unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment.
“The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were
devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral
standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and
beliefs…”
“Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural
legacies.”
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
Is this really about the scientific adequacy of
evolution?
Or is it about its perceived moral and social
implications?
A Methodological Issue (the logic of
scientific reasoning)
Explanations versus scientific hypotheses:
What’s the difference?
ID does explain biological systems –
but is it a good scientific hypothesis?
Why or why not?
My ‘Leonard’ hypothesis
Explanations are cheap and easy
A good scientific hypothesis should make specific
predictions which are testable (falsifiable)
They should suggest new research
questions/programs to expand our knowledge
Science not just about explaining stuff we already
know, but discovering new stuff we didn’t already
know