Transcript ID-CSH - Truman State University

Intelligent Design: Bad Science,
Bad Philosophy, or Both?
Taner Edis
Truman State University
www2.truman.edu/~edis
Our response to creationism
We say creationism is not science––not just
that creationists do not practice science, but
that the very idea of supernatural design is
out of bounds for science.
 We say creation is an essentially religious or
at least metaphysical notion. Science is all
about natural explanations for natural
phenomena. Totally different.

2003
Intelligent Design
2
Interfering philosophers
Some philosophers give
sophisticated version.
 Robert Pennock: science
must follow
methodological naturalism
(MN). Excludes ID,
protects liberal religion.
 No ID in science class!

2003
Intelligent Design
3
But is science naturalistic?
Philosophers dictating what science must be
do not have a great track record.
 Historically strange: Biologists adopted
evolution as better explanation––they didn’t
suddenly decide creation was not allowed.
 Explanations involving design and intent
not odd, e.g. in history. Nothing wrong with
ID in biology as a hypothesis.

2003
Intelligent Design
4
Practical naturalism
Philosophical ID supporters attack MN, as
illegitimately excluding ID.
 They’re right. Politically bad move as well.
 Better view: Naturalism is the most
successful, best-supported broad description
of the world. We expect this to continue.
 ID could be scientifically correct. It just
happens to be wrong.

2003
Intelligent Design
5
ID is a scientific mistake
Protecting the integrity of science education
should be the job of scientists, more than
philosophers!
 The strongest reason to keep ID out of
secular education is that ID proponents do
make scientific claims, and they
consistently get it wrong.
 Ask scientists how they explain complexity.

2003
Intelligent Design
6
Bottom-up naturalism


2003
Physical science
takes a “bottomup” view. No “life
force”; no
“molecular soul”
to give properties
of H2O.
Complexity is built
up on the simple.
Life
Biology
No life force
Mole cules
Chemistry
No magic
Particles & Forces
Intelligent Design
Physics
7
Chance and Necessity




2003
Physics relies on
chance and necessity.
Radioactive decays
happen at random.
H2O structure
explained by physical
laws; QM.
Combinations of
chance and necessity!
Intelligent Design
8
Rules and Dice

2003
Chance and necessity are inseparable.
Intelligent Design
9
Complexity?




2003
How, then, do we explain
complexity?
Theories of thermodynamics
(self-organization),
computation, evolution etc.
All are related, and all do
their work through chance
and necessity.
Life becomes mechanical?
Intelligent Design
10
ID: A separate principle
2003
Intelligent Design
11
“Specified complexity”
William Dembski,
mathematician and
philosopher. Leading
theorist of ID.
 ID irreducible form of
explanation, distinct from
chance & necessity.
 ID is a revolution.

2003
Intelligent Design
12
Dembski’s claims
Both designed artifacts and organisms
exhibit special order: specified complexity.
 Chance and necessity cannot generate SC,
or information.
 Intelligence is a separate principle.
 Blind mechanisms (like those of Darwinian
evolution) cannot explain life.
 Artificial Intelligence is impossible.

2003
Intelligent Design
13
Testing for Design
Gün aydinlar!
Bugün h ava iyi,
ancak yarin daha
kötü ol acak gibi.
Bulut çok, ama ne
yapar, belli degil.
contingency
contingency
F G
m1m 2
r12
complexity
specification
2003
Intelligent Design
14
Why computers can’t create
print

2003
Gün aydinlar!
Bugün h ava iyi,
ancak yarin daha
kötü ol acak gibi.
Bulut çok, ama ne
yapar, belli degil.
create
Programming and input determine the output of a
computer. No new information added.
Intelligent Design
15
What about chance?
Chance outcomes are not determined by
input and programming. And Darwinian
variation-and-selection relies on random
mutations which might work better…
 Dembski says nothing changes. In that
case, the SC (information) is extracted from
the selection criteria.

2003
Intelligent Design
16
How are we creative?
Humans are truly creative––we are flexible,
not bound by pre-programmed rules. We
always might figure out a new way to do
things.
 Gödelian critique of AI: Any system of rules
is rigid; it has blind spots.
 Dembski’s SC + this  No mechanism can
be creative, including Darwin’s.

2003
Intelligent Design
17
Where is ID mistaken?
All the previous claims are wrong.
 Approach AI aspect first: how can we get
flexibility and creativity without magic?
 ID, and Gödelian arguments, demand that
humans are nonalgorithmic, beyond
computer programs.
 This can be achieved by combining
programs (rules) with randomness.

2003
Intelligent Design
18
Game theory


2003
In games where the
opponent can adapt to a
set strategy and
exploit it, occasional
random behavior
can be the best strategy.
Not bound by rules.
Novelty, unpredictability
come from randomness.
Intelligent Design
19
Completeness Theorem
All functions are partly random (Edis 1998).
 The only tasks beyond rules and
randomness (chance and necessity) are
those needing infinite information. We have
no way to do these.
 Any human output, including that with
specified complexity, can be produced by
mechanisms including chance.

2003
Intelligent Design
20
ID cannot work!


2003
We know what is
beyond mechanisms.
Not flexibility, not
creativity, not specified
complexity.
Intelligence itself must
be built out of chance
and necessity. Not a
separate principle!
Intelligent Design
21
Darwinian Creativity
How, then, can randomness give real
creativity?
 Biologists have already solved this problem.
The Darwinian mechanism does exactly
this––creates information (Schneider 2000).
 Darwinian thinking has become common in
other fields concerning creativity––in AI,
and cognitive and brain sciences.

2003
Intelligent Design
22
Darwin takes over the brain

2003
Our own intelligent designs are enabled by
Darwinian processes taking place within our
brains!
Intelligent Design
23
Dembski’s mistake
Dembski thinks of evolution as solution to a
preset problem.
 Evolution is no such thing. What is “fittest”
continually changes, depending on the
organisms themselves. There is no preset or
final goal.
 ID is completely out of touch with today’s
science concerning complexity.

2003
Intelligent Design
24
Creationism is futile
In Darwin’s time, we could still say
intelligence was a principle separate from
chance and necessity; but the evidence was
that life diversified by blind mechanisms.
 Today, we can again notice that artifacts and
organisms are alike. This is because
intelligence itself is absorbed in chance and
necessity. Intelligence is itself Darwinian!

2003
Intelligent Design
25
ID gets it wrong!
We can see ID has it wrong about
complexity, and we see this by doing good,
ordinary science––not just philosophy.
 Politically difficult to say ID is like the flat
earth, since ID expresses deep theistic
intuitions about divine design.
 Nevertheless, scientists should at least stand
up and say we know better.

2003
Intelligent Design
26
Shameless plugs
Chapter in Taner Edis,
The Ghost in the
Universe, (Prometheus,
2002).
 In preparation: essays by
scientists, mathematicians,
and philosophers,
criticizing ID.

2003
Intelligent Design
27
My web site
www2.truman.edu/~edis
Contains all sorts of articles on ID,
creationism and other topics, including the
slides of this talk.
 My e-mail is [email protected]

2003
Intelligent Design
28