Isn’t ID Just a Sneaky Way to Get God into the Public Square?
Perhaps no issue causes more confusion in the debate over intelligent design than the connection—real or alleged—between ID arguments and arguments for the existence of God. Critics frequently contend that modern ID arguments are nothing but Trojan Horses for theocracy, or at the very least, are just sneaky ways to inject God, religion, and traditional views of marriage into the public square. But when ID theorists distinguish ID from theological arguments, they do it, first, to highlight the basis on which modern ID arguments are made, second, to avoid making arguments for design do more than they can really do, and third, to distinguish showing that something is designed from showing who designed it.
ID Focuses on Evidence of Design but doesn’t identify the Designer
What do Catcher in the Rye, the Mona Lisa, Mount Rushmore, and a love note etched on a sandy beach have in common? They are all signs of design. That is, they all reflect the work of an intelligent agent. If you understand that, you understand the first claim of modern intelligent design arguments: intelligent agents sometimes leave traces of their activity behind, like fingerprints on evidence.
The second ID claim is like unto the first, only different: there are signs of design in nature—in the stuff biologists and physicists and astronomers study. It’s this second claim that can get you in trouble with the authorities and cause you problems with your tenure committee. Design theorists, like forensic detectives, have developed methods and arguments for separating out the effects of impersonal processes like gravity or wind erosion from signs of design like Catcher in the Rye. Some ID folks have also argued that certain “impersonal” processes and properties of nature, like the force of gravity and the initial state of the early universe, are themselves evidence of an intelligently designed universe. Notice that the focus of design arguments is on the effects themselves, not on the designer.
For instance, we can tell that Mt. Rushmore was sculpted by the complex and highly specific patterns of faces we see on the mountain. We can tell that it was designed, even if we’ve never heard of Gutzon Borglum and the 400 workers he employed to sculpt the faces of four American presidents on a mountain side in the Black Hills of South Dakota. You’ve probably never even heard of Gutzon Borglum. If you’ve heard his name, you probably don’t know anything about him. Did you know that Borglum and his crew toiled on the granite structure from 1927 until 1941? Probably not. You still know it’s designed, right? Even if a smart alien landed in South Dakota and saw Mt. Rushmore, he would recognize that it was designed. And even if he didn’t, it would still be designed and would still provide evidence of design for those with the proper background knowledge to recognize it.
OK, but let’s say God (defined as a maximally great, transcendent personal being) sculpted Mt. Rushmore with lightning bolts in 2023 BC but the federal government made up the story about Borglum to help Americans have better self-esteem during the Great Depression. Would that make it impossible to tell it was designed? Would that mean that to recognize the design, one would need to do theology rather than simply observing the mountain? Of course not. The evidence for design is the same either way. No one would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by saying: “That ain’t no ordinary mountain. Somebody designed it.”
When Michael Behe argues that design is the best explanation for molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum, he hasn’t demonstrated who the designer is. This is simple logic. Anyone without an axe to grind should be able to get it. The evidence for design in biology is consistent with different types of designers. For instance, Behe has said it’s possible that intelligent aliens are responsible for the design of life on earth. He’s not saying he thinks that’s true. He’s saying that the evidence he’s talking about is consistent with that possibility. The bacterial flagellum doesn’t have a copyright symbol on it. It doesn’t have an inscription that reads: “Made by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” So by itself, the most Behe’s argument can show is that the flagellum is designed, not who designed it. ID theorists aren’t being evasive when they point this out. They’re being honest.
To summarize: you can often tell that something is designed even if you don’t know anything else about the designer, and regardless of the identity and metaphysical status of the designer. If you understand this, you’ve already understood more than 95% of the smartest ID critics and more than virtually every reporter who has ever written about ID.
Follow-up Questions Are Okay
Of course, if we want to, we can go on to ask questions about the designer and get some pretty good if generic answers. First, the designer must be an intelligent agent. An agent isn’t a process, a mechanism, or a blind force. An agent has purposes, intentions, and a will.
Looking at integrated machines like the bacterial flagellum, we can see that the designer of nature has foresight. The designer has the ability to build things that are first envisioned and then brought into existence, to see separate parts performing a function that none of the parts can perform on its own.
Second, given the scope of evidence for design in nature, from biology to cosmology, the designer must be able to create self-replicating nanotechnology, and to set up the basic properties of matter (or to set up other processes that give rise to these realities). This agent is, to say the least, really creative, really smart, and really powerful.
This is especially true when we look for evidence of design in nature as a whole. We see information technology and molecular machines inside cells, we see physical laws that look like they were set up for the existence of complex life, and we see distant galaxies receding away from us, implying the universe had a beginning in the past. So, the physical universe didn’t always exist. That rules out materialism, which claims that matter is the most basic reality. And it means that the origin of the physical universe must lie beyond the universe.
Now we’re dealing with design far beyond the pay grade of your average space alien. We’re talking about a designer that transcends the physical universe, and yet has the power to bring that universe into existence. We’re also dealing with a designer who takes an interest in the details. The designer is in the details. Design isn’t just evident at the largest scales (the universe as a whole) but at the small scales (in tiny molecular machines). To a lot of people, and not just the snake handling crowd in Appalachia, that skill set sounds a lot like God. Somewhere beyond this point, we pass from narrowly scientific matters to more philosophical or theological matters, from talking about the publicly available evidence of nature to reasoning about the likely nature of the designer. So what? Only the most fanatical secularist should be terrified by this prospect. All this means is that some evidence drawn from science has theological implications. But even Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins concede that point.
My own view (speaking now as a theist rather than merely a design theorist) is that we can’t deductively prove God’s existence with evidence for design. But for explaining that evidence, the four main options—materialism (matter is all there is), pantheism (the universe is God), deism (a transcendent God created the universe but otherwise ignores it) and theism (a transcendent God created the universe and cares about the details), theism seems to have the most explanatory power. Still, I would want more than just the evidence for design to make the case for theism itself.
Of course, at the most, we’re still talking about public evidence, which taken together, can provide evidence for what some have called the “god of the philosophers.” We can’t squeeze all the rich claims about God from various religious traditions out of the data derived from telescope and microscope. We can’t discover that God called Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldeans, spoke to Moses on Mt. Sinai, came to Earth as Jesus, or spoke to the prophet Mohammed, by looking at stars and bacteria. These ideas, whether true or false, come from history and recorded testimony, not natural science per se.
That is why ID can be properly considered in public scientific discussions and be distinguished from arguments for God’s existence, while nevertheless have positive theological implications. No wonder materialists don’t like ID.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
"What do Catcher in the Rye, the Mona Lisa, Mount Rushmore, and a love note etched on a sandy beach have in common? They are all signs of design. That is, they all reflect the work of an intelligent agent."
And, of course, we know that these were created by human agents and we have thousands of years of experience with those human agents. So what?
"intelligent agents sometimes leave traces of their activity behind, like fingerprints on evidence."
Like termite mounds or crystals or tree limbs shaped like letters of the alphabet? Oops, sometimes such things are not the result of "intelligent agents" like humans. So if you cannot be more specific about the nature of your supposed "intelligent agent", there is no good reason to suspect that any such thing actually exists. There are no "fingerprints" and there is no "evidence".
"there are signs of design in nature"
Maybe there are signs of APPARENT design in nature. But there's no evidence that there was a real designer, so the apparent design might just be meaningless as far as "intelligent design" is concerned.
"Design theorists, like forensic detectives, have developed methods ..."
Except that their "methods" are not at all like "forensic detectives" and their methods don't actually work in practice. Their "method" amounts to "I don't think anything but design can explain this." That's not a "method" - that's wishful thinking based on their religious motivation.
"... and arguments"
which are not worth the electrons being used to display them.
"When Michael Behe argues that design is the best explanation for molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum,"
Then he is making a big mistake since that is obviously not the best explanation (or even any explanation at all). Possible paths for the evolution of the flagellum are well known.
"you can often tell that something is designed even if you don’t know anything else about the designer"
ANYTHING ELSE??? Or not anything at all??? You're just "blowing smoke". This is not any kind of "theory". Same old "I know design when I see it" nonsense.
"Now we’re dealing with design far beyond the pay grade of your average space alien."
I have to assume that you are an expert on this particular assertion because you are or have met a large variety of space aliens??? Or else you're just continuing to "make it up as you go along".
"theism seems to have the most explanatory power."
Of course - an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal supernatural agent can make, do, create, cause anything and everything. So that "explains" everything and there's no need for silly science to look for "naturalistic" causes and effects. Wait! I thought you were claiming that ID was NOT trying to get your god into the public square?
"That is why ID can be properly considered in public scientific discussions"
Nope. ID is not a theory and it can never be science and therefore it is properly rejected in scientific discussions.
Just what is the "ID theory"? If it can easily explain everything, how can it be tested? Is there any way that it could possibly be found to be wrong? If everything is design and design explains everything, then it's a completely circular argument. Did it predict where to find tiktaalik?
Why are you claiming one designer? There's just as much evidence for a pantheon as there is a monotheistic god, but you have the prior assumption the designer is your god and automatically rule them out when you say "the" designer.
You also don't bear into account other possibilities: the designer left, the designer actually meant for some other creature to rise into power (plausible, since we live on a planet 75% water and yet do not have gills,) or the designer is not omnipotent or omniscient and cannot travel back in time. These are not disprovable by the rules you've laid out as your "proof" for ID.
You are not claiming "intelligent design" as much as you are "one being outside the rules of physics who is capable of time travel and travel throughout the universe, who for some unknown reason remains invested in one planet of the creation he/she/it made." Which sounds like the Abrahamic god, which means your "designer" claim is, in fact, a way to slide your narrowly defined god into science through the back door.
Jay,
What makes you qualify as a design theorist? Please be specific.
-Karen
Intelligent Design is an idea, not a theory. The evidence given amounts to this:
1) Life is complex.
2) We don't have complete models of how nature could have done it.
But here is where the error comes in. The ASSUMPTION that just because we don't know, something unnatural created us. You will hear people say 'there is evidence of design'. This is a very broad statement. Ask questions! What kind of evidence? Is this the conclusion of a scientific peer-reviewed study? Or is it something that "seems" right to the person making the statement? To make a judgement one way or the other, you must educate yourself on terms, and what people mean by certain words.
Yet another contradiction is this: If nature could not have created us, and some intelligence did, what created that intelligence? Some other intelligence? What created that? Unnatural, natural, hmmm. The whole thing starts to smell real funny when you look at it from the side.
I understand that ID claims to not focus on the designer. Rather the evidence for design. The nature of the design is inextricably related to the nature of the designer however. But as related to being taught in schools, what is there to teach? Besides a sentence saying "evolution currently is not fully understood", I can't think of anything relevant that ID could provide.
It is an interesting talking point, in looking at what evolution can not currently explain. But don't make the mistake that science will continue to be ignorant of such phenomena. Despite what many think, science is just a passive tool used for understanding the world around us. The word comes from the latin word for knowledge, after all.
Just remember: We Don't Know. Yet.
It is a fact that design can be determined in the absence of a designer.
As a matter of fact reality dictates that the ONLY way to make ANY deyermination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, IN THE ABSENCE OF DIRECT OBSERVATION OR DESIGNER INPUT, isto study the design in question.
If we knew the designer then we wouldn't have a design inference as design would be a given. And then we certain;y wouldn't need science to aid us in that design inference.
BTW you people continue to ignore the fact that natural processes cannot account for the origins of nature because natural processes only exist IN nature.
--
BTW you people continue to ignore the fact that natural processes cannot account for the origins of nature because natural processes only exist IN nature.
--
Are you saying that natural processes can account for the evolution of nature because only natural processes exist in nature?
--Joe G
It is a fact that design can be determined in the absence of a designer.
--
Sure, by understanding the constraints of the designer, the general motives, opportunities and means and other circumstantial evidence. This is called ordinary design.
ID is about rarefied design which refuses to contrain the designer and thus lack a reliable method to infer design.
I assume you have yet to read Wilkins and Elsberry's paper on this?
That's a shame because it would lift a piece of the veil of ignorance we see so typically covering ID proponents' knowledge about science, whether it is the fact of common descent, a fact which even Behe accepts, or the scientific vacuity of design.
The only way that design could be detected in nature is if there were objects around that weren't designed. Otherwise,there wouldn't be any way of telling the difference. But Christianity and other theistic religions maintain that God created heaven and earth, in other words, everything. It follows that absolutely everything was designed and there is no way of singling out living things as more designed than anything else.
Bzzzt! Thanks for playing.
Yes Jim, we see objects on a daily basis that were not designed. Otherwise the word "artifact" wouldn't have any meaning.
Also there wouldn't be any need for a special department for homicide- you do realize that we can tell the difference between a homicide, an accident and a natural death.
BTW Christianity does not maintain that "God" Created everything AS IT IS TODAY.
--Joe G
BTW Christianity does not maintain that "God" Created everything AS IT IS TODAY.
--
Some versions of Christianity in fact do seem to do this as they allow only for minor variation. However, this is an important comment since it shows that the concept of 'front loading' which removes the design event to outside our direct observation, is fully compatible with science as we know it and thus the addition of the need of a 'designer' seems rather ad hoc and perhaps unnecessary. ID however proposes no way to resolve this conundrum, which is why, in the minds of so many, ID is scientifically vacuous.
That figures.
Geez PvM your position that everything comes down to sheer dumb luck is totally vacuous. It cannot be tested. It relies solely on circumstantial evidence which is guided by your predisposition to reject design a priori.
BTW everything in your position is beyond observation. Universal common descent- never observed, not even in the fossil record. Mutations accumulating to give rise to novel structures with novel functions- never observed.
IOW there isn't a shred of science in your position.
contribution from Joe G
--Joe G
Geez PvM your position that everything comes down to sheer dumb luck is totally vacuous. It cannot be tested. It relies solely on circumstantial evidence which is guided by your predisposition to reject design a priori.
--
Of course that is a false description of my position. As I have pointed out design is always a possibility and is rejected a posteriori
--Joe G
BTW everything in your position is beyond observation. Universal common descent- never observed, not even in the fossil record. Mutations accumulating to give rise to novel structures with novel functions- never observed.
--
Again Joe G shows his ignorance of the evidence for common descent, novel structures through mutations etc.
In other words, not only has Joe shown that ID is scientifically vacuous but also, based on personal ignorance of science.
--Joe G
IOW there isn't a shred of science in your position.
--
ROTFL, you're funny Joe. When asked to defend ID, you expose your ignorance of real science.
Well done
I'm aware of that ID Christians give themselves a huge fudge factor by claiming that the Fall of Man somehow fouled up non-human nature. But there were, we presume, rocks and sand and and mud in the Garden of Eden. If somebody examined them on the morning before the Fall, would they also show signs of design? After all, they would be God's creation and therefore artifacts.
So, Bzzzt! Thanks for playing again. We do appreciate the quarters you keep dropping in the machine.
and one of the reasons why ID appears to be lousy theology but what the heck I am sure IDers can find yet another ad hoc explanation for this.
They are quite good at the apologetics part of this, it's the science part that they still need to iron out.
You gave 3 claims of Intelligent Design:
1) Intelligent agents sometimes leave traces of their activity behind, like fingerprints on evidence.
- No one can argue with that. -
2) There are signs of design in nature—in the stuff biologists and physicists and astronomers study.
- Many naturalists argue with this, but the signs of design are pretty obvious. -
Other favorite/important quotes/points:
1) Design theorists are like forensic detectives. They operate on the same principles and look for the same kinds of evidence. So ID science should be possible.
2) Notice that the focus of design arguments is on the effects themselves, not on the designer.
- Good point! Critics however, don't care about the truth. They just want to disqualify ID from the science arena so they try and distract people from this truth. It is the argument, not the personal philosophy or belief of the scientist, that should be what is important. -
3) The evidence for design is the same either way - whether the designer is supernatural or human. No one would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by saying: “That ain’t no ordinary mountain. Somebody designed it.”
- Pointing out design in nature does not make ID unconstitutional! Good point. -
4) To summarize: you can often tell that something is designed even if you don’t know anything else about the designer, and regardless of the identity and metaphysical status of the designer. If you understand this, you’ve already understood more than 95% of the smartest ID critics and more than virtually every reporter who has ever written about ID.
- I just wish the critics would honestly deal with ID instead of setting up straw men and attacking it. From my stand point, they lose credibility when they do this, and I would think that would be true of most people. I think they are shooting themselves in the foot when they do this. I'm sure they fool some people, but most people aren't that dumb. I'm always amazed at how dumb they think the average joe is. -
5) ID can be properly considered in public scientific discussions and be distinguished from arguments for God’s existence, while nevertheless have positive theological implications.
- Critics will not grant you this point, but it is hard to argue against it. Thanks for the good article. There is no reason to be afraid of where the evidence leads, unless of course, you are a die-hard naturalist who doesn't like the idea that a "Designer" may really exist. -
No wonder materialists don’t like ID.
- This is the bottom line isn't it? -
also Christians concerned about science.
But to correct your confusion, and I do not blame you for being unfamiliar with the premises of ID, ID is not in anyway close to forensic detectives.
They deal in real issues such as means, motives, opportunities, and identify suspects. ID is at best claiming that 'x' should be seen as evidence of design because we do not fully comprehend it.
Why is it so hard for ID proponents to address these simple facts.
To correct PvM's confusion:
Forensic detectives have to figure out the means. Motives and opportunities also come AFTER the design inference has been made.
That is what I have been telling you for days- That it matters a great deal to any investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agency involvement or nature, operating freely.
There wouldn't be a motive for a natural death. And in a homicide motive alone is pretty meaningless.
And again the design inference is based on our current knowledge- that being we have an understanding of what nature, operating freely, is capable of and we couple that with our knowledge of what designing agencies are capable of.
Why is it so hard for ID opponents to understand this simple fact?
"And again the design inference is based on our current knowledge- that being we have an understanding of what nature, operating freely, is capable of and we couple that with our knowledge of what designing agencies are capable of.
Why is it so hard for ID opponents to understand this simple fact?"
----------------------
We do understand, Joe ol' pal .. we just acknowledge that we don't know all of what nature, operating freely, is capable of. IOW, you just posted a classic argument from ignorance.
If we don't know then no one can say that a designer was not involved or not required.
IOW thank you for demonstrating that critics of ID base their criticism on ignorance.
-- Joe
if we don't know then no one can say that a designer was not involved or not required.
--
Indeed, and yet ID insists that we should conclude that a designer was involved.
Thanks for playing.