The Coming Revolution in Science
Dr. Ray Bohlin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The Design Inference
True scientific revolutions that impact more than a single discipline rarely
occur more than once a century. Newton's Principia, published in the 17th
century, truly qualifies. Darwin's Origin of Species, published in 1859,
also belongs on the list. Standing in the wings, ready to join these
esteemed works and perhaps even overturn the latter, stands William
Dembski's The Design Inference.{1} This impressive work published by the
distinguished Cambridge University Press outlines the mathematical
principles necessary to distinguish intelligently caused events from natural
events.
Just listen to some of the comments from the dust jacket of the book from
secular philosophers and mathematicians. One wrote, "Dembski has written a
sparklingly original book. Not since David Hume's Dialogues Concerning
Natural Religion has someone taken such a close look at the design
argument." Being put in the same sentence as David Hume is no small
potatoes. Mathematician David Berlinski warns, "Those who agree with its
point of view will read it with pleasure, and those who do not will ignore
it at their peril."
Dembski has rigorously detailed the key trademark of intelligent causes,
what he calls specified complexity. The term specified refers to the notion
that an event conforms to an independently given pattern. Complexity refers
to an event of small probability. For instance, people win improbable
lotteries all the time. The odds are usually in the millions to one. But
when the number of tickets purchased is considered, nobody questions the
legitimacy of someone holding the winning ticket. This would be an event of
small probability without any specification. Somebody will win, but nobody
can predict whom. But let's propose that the same person wins the same
lottery three times in a row! Suddenly there is an independent pattern and
we immediately become suspicious that more than just chance is involved. We
now have an event of extremely small probability that also conforms to a
pattern or is specified. The most likely cause for such an event is that
someone has intelligently tampered with the lottery.
Dembski boldly suggests that these same principles can be applied to the
question of the origin of life and other evolutionary questions and still
maintain the integrity of science. While Dembski has been sharply criticized
by the evolutionary establishment, to their discredit, their critiques have
been largely emotional and dismissive. No one has successfully challenged
the heart of his thesis.
Now before you decide to run out a get a copy, please be advised that this
book is not for the casual reader. Loaded with technical jargon and symbolic
logic, you had better haven eaten your mental Wheaties before tackling this
one. But Dembski has written a scaled down version, which I will now
discuss.
Hasn't Science and Philosophy Ruled Out Design?
William Dembski's groundbreaking book, The Design Inference from Cambridge
University Press, is highly technical. Dembski has therefore written a
follow-up book titled, Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and
Theology,{2} which is more accessible to the general reader. Christianity
Today has named it their 1999 Book of the Year in the "Christianity and
Culture" category.
Listen to a few sound bites from comments of those recommending Dembski's
Intelligent Design. A quantum chemistry professor from the University of
Georgia says, "William Dembski is perhaps the very brightest of a new
generation of scholars." A professor of philosophy from the University of
Texas says, "William Dembski is the Isaac Newton of information theory."
Another university professor proclaims "If Dembski is right, and I believe
he is, then it is unscientific to deny the existence of God." Wow!
Unscientific to deny God! Do you think that comment is rankling a good
number of evolutionary biologists? Finally, another University of Texas
professor of government goes further by claiming that "Dembski strengthens
the case for saying that our deepest moral inclinations not only look
designed, they are."
Let me now begin to satiate your curiosity by telling you a little more
about this groundbreaking work. The book is divided into three parts. In the
first part Dembski gives a historical backdrop to the current controversy
over design. In academia, the design argument has been considered dead for
over 150 years. Dembski identifies two major reasons for this demise of
design. The first was the continual attack on miracles, which culminated in
the 18th and 19th century. Dembski cogently explains that their arguments
don't work.
The second blow to design came from Darwin's Origin of Species. Darwin
dismissed the prevalent British natural theology of his day by not so much
refuting it, but by announcing that it simply wasn't scientific. Dembski
quotes evolutionary philosopher David Hull, "He dismissed it not because it
was an incorrect scientific explanation, but because it was not a proper
scientific explanation at all." Darwin's faulty conception of science is
still with us and Dembski sets out to refute it.
The criteria used by the British natural theologians were naive in the sense
that they believed that design was self-evident. This led to far too many
false positives, that is, assignments of design that were later proved to be
naturalistic. The design argument was forced to retreat. In the second part
of Intelligent Design, Dembski articulates the principles laid out in his
The Design Inference for the general reader.
What Does a Theory of Design Look Like?
Having told you about Dembski's work and the impact it is beginning to have,
I will summarize Dembski's prescription or cure for the rule of naturalism
in science.{3}
No one in the design movement as far as I know seeks to invoke God at every
turn as an explanation for natural phenomena. So why bring God into the
picture at all? For most scientists, God is only a hypothesis, and an
unnecessary one at that. But beyond the ordinary operation of nature is its
order. Dembski references Einstein's remark that the most incomprehensible
thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. This order must come
from outside the universe or from within. But science tells us today that
the only allowable answer is that it comes from within. This naturalistic
philosophy has become a form of idolatry. Nature becomes the do all and end
all. As Dembski says, "Rather it is a matter of investing the world with a
significance it does not deserve."{4}
Naturalism is pervasive in the culture. Even most Christians think and live
naturalistically without realizing it. So how can naturalism be defeated?
What is needed, says Dembski, is a means of detecting God's actions in the
natural world. In other words there must be a reliable way to distinguish
natural causes from intelligent causes. Some sciences already employ such
methods such as forensic medicine, cryptography, archeology, and even the
SETI program, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. SETI depends on
the ability to distinguish an intelligent message from space from the
surrounding radio noise. This can be done without necessarily understanding
the message or knowing the message sender.
This brings up another crucial point of intelligent design. Dembski says
that intelligent design is theologically minimalist.{5} By this he means
that intelligent design empirically detects design without speculating about
the nature of the intelligence. This is crucial to answer the critics who
accuse design theorists of simply wanting to bring the Bible into science.
If one detects design or concludes that a particular natural phenomena
contains the necessary earmarks of design, that's all that needs to be said.
One can personally reflect on the nature of this intelligence, but it is not
a part of the scientific test.
Dembski calls for a new generation of scholars open to pursuing intelligent
causes in the universe. Here at Probe we're committed to helping find,
select, and train such potential scholars to take part in a true scientific
revolution.
Does Intelligent Design Offer a Bridge between Science and Theology?
In this review and summarization of Dembski's insights let's now explore the
future Dembski foresees for the dialogue between science and theology.{6}
Of course most within the scientific community see no future at all for such
a discourse. Most within modern academia hold to either of three models that
Dembski labels as conflicting, complementing, or compartmentalizing. Most of
us are very familiar with the conflict model. Most who call themselves
rationalists or secular humanists would subscribe to this view. Basically
they see science as having explained all of reality and that there is no
room for theology at all. I once attended a conference where a theology
professor was so intimidated by this view that he said that theology was a
dead discipline and would cease to exist in twenty years.
Stephen J. Gould, a Harvard paleontologist, and the National Academy of
Sciences have advocated the compartmentalization view. Basically they
maintain that science and theology inform different parts of reality¾science
the realm of facts and theology the realm of morals and faith. There is no
conflict and also no dialogue between the two. It is also not hard to see
that this view basically rules theology out of any important discussions
about real facts. Theology inhabits only the fuzzy world of morals, which
must be relative if naturalism rules in science.
Similar is the complementarity view, which essentially states that science
and theology can actually inform the same reality, but their language is so
foreign to the other that no meaningful discourse can take place. Both are
necessary to give a complete account of reality, but you can forget about
the two ever talking to each other.
In one way or another, each of these three views will eventually rule
theology as irrelevant to the important questions and a fully naturalistic
science will eventually be the wellspring for all useful information and
discourse. But as you might expect, Dembski offers a fourth view and argues
that it is the only proper view of the two disciplines.
Dembski compares science and theology to two different windows that view the
same reality. Since the windows are different, they gain a different
perspective. But since they are viewing the same reality, what is seen from
each window can in many cases be meaningfully related. Both science and
theology may on occasion, be capable of further explaining observations from
each window. He offers the current discussion concerning the cosmology's Big
Bang and theology's act of Creation as an example. If the Big Bang is true,
then Christianity's theology of creation ex nihilo is a better explanation
than naturalism's attempt to explain something from nothing.
There is much more work to be done here as Dembski readily admits, but the
tone and direction is very refreshing.
What Are the Standard Objections to Design in Science?
There is the potential of the intelligent design movement bringing about a
revolution in science. I have summarized the work of William Dembski, a
double Ph.D. in philosophy and mathematics with a Master's of Divinity
thrown in for good measure. In the appendix of his much acclaimed book,
Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology, Dembski
investigates several of the more common objections to intelligent design. To
conclude this review I will examine one of these objections.
Dembski states the first objection this way, "Design substitutes
extraordinary explanations where ordinary explanations will do and thereby
commits a god-of-the-gaps fallacy." Those believing that God used evolution
as His means of creation usually voice this objection. This view is
motivated by the tremendous history of naturalistic science in explaining
very difficult natural phenomena by natural means. This often occurs after
someone has claimed that God was necessary to explain a particular
observation. Isaac Newton thought divine intervention was necessary to
explain the irregularities of planetary orbits. It was eventually shown that
these irregularities were periodic and not random and thus explainable by
natural law.{7}
Newton was widely criticized for this view, and many Christians fear that
appealing to design now will end up in ridicule later when natural processes
may also explain contrivances of intelligent design later. While this fear
is understandable in the light of history, there are considerable
differences. Design does not claim to simply explain what we do not
understand. Rather, intelligent design is attempting to demonstrate a real
solution to problems based on what we know about design, not what we don't
know about natural explanations.
Besides, if we believe that the laws of nature are incapable of producing
certain natural phenomena, such as the genetic code of DNA, just how long
are we supposed to keep looking for a naturalistic solution instead of
looking elsewhere? This puts shackles on scientific inquiry and stifles new
ideas. Certainly we should attempt to exhaust all known naturalistic
possibilities before pursuing a design answer. But fear of failure should
not be our deterrent. There is always risk in proposing new scientific ideas
and hypotheses. The risk is that you just might be wrong. But this has never
permanently hindered the proposal of a new idea. Failure should be a
constant risk in science. Otherwise nothing new will ever be discovered.
"Not all gaps are created equal. To assume that they are is to presuppose
the very thing that is in question, namely, naturalism."{8} William Dembski
has issued a strong challenge through his books and more are to follow from
others dealing with the philosophy and science of intelligent design. The
next several years should be very exciting indeed.
Notes
William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance by through
Small Probabilities (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and
Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999).
Ibid., 97- 121.
Ibid., 101.
Ibid., 107.
Ibid., 187- 210.
Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton, The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and
Natural Philosophy, Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994), 91-92.
Dembski, Intelligent Design, 245.
© 2000 Probe Ministries International
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
<A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
