1INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY AND THE SUPERNATURAL -- THE “GOD OR EXTRA-TERRESTRIALS” REPLY Elliott Sober Abstract: When proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) theory deny that their theory is religious, the minimalistic theory they have in mind (the mini-ID theory) is the claim that the irreducibly complex adaptations found in nature were made by one or more intelligent designers. The denial that this theory is religious rests on the fact that it does not specify the identity of the designer -- a supernatural God or a team of extra-terrestrials could have done the work. The present paper attempts to show that this reply underestimates the commitments of the mini-ID Theory. The mini-ID theory, when supplemented with four independently plausible further assumptions, entails the existence of a supernatural intelligent designer. It is further argued that scientific theories, such as the Darwinian theory of evolution, are neutral on the question of whether supernatural designers exist. 1. Will the Real ID Theory Please Stand Up? What is Intelligent Design (ID) theory? Answering this question is complicated by the fact that one version of the theory is minimalistic, while others are more contentful. The minimalistic version, which I’ll call the mini-ID theory, says only that the irreducibly complex adaptations that organisms possess were made by one or more intelligent designers (Behe 1996, 2005; Dembski 1995, 1998b, p.15). The identities of these designers are not specified; maybe the vertebrate eye was made by a team of Extra Terrestrials or by a God who lives outside of space and time. The mini-ID theory does not deny that human beings have common ancestors with other species, nor does it insist that the earth is young, nor does it offer an explanation of the origin of the universe. The mini-ID theory differs from some earlier versions of Creationism by virtue of its modesty.1 Defenders of the mini-ID theory have a lot more to say about intelligent design, and this is where more contentful versions of ID theory make their appearance. For example, Philip Johnson (1996), one of the main architects of ID theory, endorses theistic realism, “affirm[ing] that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly biology;” he says that this is “the defining concept of our movement.” In their widely used ID textbook, Of Pandas and People, Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon (1993, p. 7, p. 26, p. 100) frequently contrast “natural” and “intelligent” causes; this indicates that the intelligent designers they have in mind are supernatural. And Dembski (1998b, p 20) rejects theistic evolutionism, which is the thesis that God used the evolutionary process to produce organisms and their adaptive features. Dembski’s gripe is with evolutionary theory, not with divine design.2 Given the many ways in which ID theorizing goes beyond the mini-ID theory, why was the mini-ID theory ever formulated as a separate claim? One reason is suggested by Johnson’s comment that “people of differing theological views should learn who’s close to them, form alliances and put aside divisive issues ‘til later... I say after we’ve settled the issue of a Creator, we’ll have a wonderful time arguing about the age of 12the Earth” (quoted in Walker 1998, p. 24). A modest theory has the virtue of uniting the warring factions against a common enemy. In addition, by not using the word “God,” the mini-ID theory may have a better chance than some of its Creationist predecessors of passing the Constitutional test that bars promoting religion in public schools. Another motive is revealed by the Discovery Institute’s “Wedge Strategy” (available at http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html). The Discovery Institute in Seattle is the flagship ID think tank and the “Wedge Strategy” is its political manifesto. The document is an internal memo that was leaked on the Internet in 2001; the Institute says its goal is to “replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” Philip Johnson’s (1991) critique of Darwinism and Michael Behe’s (1995) application of the mini-ID theory to some complex biochemical adaptations are described as the “thin edge of the wedge,” whose purpose is to split the “giant tree” of “materialistic science.” According to the Wedge Strategy, “design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.” What, then, is ID theory? Is it just the mini-ID theory, or the more contentful hypothesis that the adaptations of organisms and the universe itself were created by the Christian God, or is it something in between? The second of these is obviously religious in content, but the first, apparently, is not. It is not the point of the present paper to discuss any further the motives behind the construction of the mini-ID theory nor to argue that one of these versions of ID theory is the “real” theory of intelligent design. Rather, the goal is to trace out the implications of what the mini-ID theory actually asserts. The mini-ID theory does imply the existence of a supernatural intelligent designer when it is supplemented by four propositions that are independently supported. 2. A First Cause Argument Applied to the Mini-ID Theory Consider the following argument, which owes a debt to Thomas Aquinas. It is not an argument that I am advocating, but one to which ID theorists need to respond. 1. If a system found in nature is irreducibly complex, then it was caused to exist by an intelligent designer. 2. Some of the minds found in nature are irreducibly complex. 3. Therefore some of the minds found in nature were caused to exist by an intelligent designer. 4. Any mind in nature that designs and builds an irreducibly complex system is itself irreducibly complex. 5. If the universe is finitely old and if cause precedes effect, then at least one of the minds found in nature was not created by any mind found in nature. 6. The universe is finitely old. 23 7. Causes precede their effects. 8. Therefore, there exists a supernatural intelligent designer. In this argument, apparently non-religious
View Full Document
Unlocking...