William Paley – The Father of Intelligent Design?

William Paley formulated an argument from design, claiming that by observing the natural world we would see evidence for the ‘existence’ and ‘attributes’ of God. His Natural Theology concerned this subject and argued that the intricacy of organisms’ forms and their suitability to diverse ecological niches proved and pointed to design. Paley began his book by writing:

William Paley (1743-1805)

‘In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer, that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to shew the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be enquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch, as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjustedas to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the several parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all could have been carried on in the machine, or non which would have answered the use, that is now served by it.’¹

Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975)

Paley’s natural theology was perturbed and subsequently disbanded in the following years, as a new view of nature emerged in the nineteenth century, the pre-eminent revolution embodied in Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, which has proved the most astounding and credible theory in the history of biology. In the words of Theodosius Dobzhansky, ‘Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution.’² In the famous eponymous article, Dobzhansky asks the question ‘Is there an explanation, to make intelligible to reason this colossal diversity of living beings?’ and responds that ‘The only explanation that makes sense is that the organic diversity has evolved in response to the diversity of environment on the planet earth.’³

However, what had appeared an extinct notion, or discipline, has been resurrected in the guise of Intelligent Design theory (ID). ID arose in America in the 1990s upon the publication of several books by Phillip E. Johnson (‘not a biologist, nor a scientist of any kind, but a lawyer’⁴) (Darwin on Trial: 1991), Michael Behe (Darwin’s Black Box:1996), and William A. Dembski (The Design Inference: 1998). ID ‘is an anti-Darwinian movement’ – although, bizarrely, it champions Darwinism as the explanation for much of life’s diversity – ‘that seeks to identify highly specified examples of design in living organisms, putting these examples forward as evidence for a designer.’⁵ ‘ID claims intelligent causation is the best explanation for information-rich structures, that intelligent causation is empirically detectable, and that intelligent causation is admissible in scientific theory making.’⁶

Now, after looking at what intelligent design is, let’s have a look at what proponents of ID say it isn’t, and then move on to examine ID and see whether it stands to scrutiny. ID proponents are eager to assert that ID is ‘not “creation science”‘⁷ and that it is ‘not natural theology.’⁸

So, let’s examine the first denial: Is ID creation science? Well, ID is not creation science in the sense of flood geology, a literal interpretation of Genesis and subsequent mangling of virtually all scientific evidence to fit the mould of an ancient, pre-scientific text. But ID does claim that several biological properties are ‘irreducibly complex’ and that they cannot therefore be explained by gradualistic, cumulative evolution. So what could explain the existence of these properties if they defy evolution, and if they had to spring into existence ‘ready-made’ (as if any component was missing would mean dysfunction), apart from special creation? I would certainly regard ID as a form of creation science, for that is what it is! (Incidentally, in Richard Dawkins’ book A Devil’s Chaplain‘s index, I was amused to find the index reference for ‘Intelligent Design’ redirected to ‘Creationism’!)

Secondly, is ID natural theology? Does ID argue that ‘the presence of God… can be discerned within creation’?⁹ ID proponents cannot risk their theory being considered anything other than scientific, for then it cannot rival Darwinism in any meaningful sense. Dembski writes that ID ‘detects intelligence without speculating about the nature of the intelligence.’¹⁰ Behe has said, in an interview for the Guardian with John Sutherland, that ‘All that the evidence from biochemistry points to is some very intelligent agent. Although I find it congenial to think that it’s God, others might prefer to think it’s an alien – or who knows? An angel, or some satanic force, some new age power. Something we don’t know anything about yet… we focus simply on the observation of design. We don’t say the designer is God.^’11

However, is this true? It might be worth noting that Johnson, Dembski and Behe are all Christians (as am I), so I would be inclined to suspect that they do believe that the designer is God! And the other point is that the intelligent designer would not likely be, according to design theory, an ‘alien’, or some such other earth-bound, physical entity, as anything more complex than, say, a bacterial flagellum motor – as a designer of irreducibly complex biological contraptions must be! – must not be able to be explained by gradualistic evolution, as (1) it is physical and finite and (2) (according to design theory) it will contain irreducibly complex forms necessary to its function, as it is immeasurably more complex than a bacterial flagellum. Postulating a physical designer requires another physical designer, and so on, ad infinitum. If we are to avoid an infinite regress we must invoke an entity which could, in principle, do the job of the designer, and such an entity would be a ‘conscious, mind-like reality’, an ‘eternal mind’¹² – an entity recognisable as God. Regardless of our personal beliefs, it appears that the only possible designer would be God.

So what becomes of ID’s claim that it isn’t natural theology? Well, ID ‘detects intelligence without speculating about the nature of the intelligence’, but when the only possible designer is God, ID ‘detects [the] intelligence’ of God. Of course, as Behe says, the designer could be something non-physical and non-God, such as ‘An angel, or some satanic force, some new age power’, but does this assertion hold any credence? I think not. When the only possible designer is God, the notion becomes a natural theology, and therefore becomes something other than science. It becomes something which by defintion cannot be verified in the same way a scientific theory can. I conclude that ID is natural theology, but it just can’t be admitted by design theorists, for as soon as it is, it becomes something other than what it purports to be, confounding the enterprise.

~

In the next post I shall attempt to further inspect the claims of ID, and hopefully make some sense. This post has been a kind of preliminary, somewhat longer than originally intended, introducing the discussion. The next post will hopefully dig a little deeper.

References

1. Paley, W. (1802). Natural theology: or, evidence of the existence and attributes of the deity, collected from the appearances of nature. (London: Taylor and Wilks). p. 1-2.
2. Dobzhansky, T. (1973). ‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’. The American Biology Teacher (35), p. 125-129.
3. ibid. p. 126.
4. Dawkins, R. (2003). A devil’s chaplain: reflections on hopes, lies, science and love. (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company). p. 221.
5. Alexander, D. (2008). Creation or evolution: do we have to choose?. (Oxford: Monarch Books). p. 293.
6. Williams, P. S. (2004). I wish I could believe in meaning: a response to nihilism. (Southampton: Damaris Publishing). p. 349.
7. ibid. p. 351.
8. ibid. p. 354.
9. McGrath, A. (1994). Christian theology: an introduction. (Cambridge, Massachusets: Blackwell). p. 158.
10. Dembski, W. A. (1998). ‘The intelligent design movement’. Cosmic Pursuit, March 1. Available at: <http://www.designinference.com/documents/1998.03.ID_movement.htm> [Accessed 13 June 2011]
11. John Sutherland in conversation with Michael Behe. (2005). ‘A design for life’. Guardian, 12 Sep. Available at: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep/12/religion.news> [Accessed 13 June 2011]
12. Ward, K. (2011). Is religion irrational?. (Oxford: Lion Hudson). p. 17.

Advertisement