In Intelligent Design, William A. Dembski discusses the complexity and specificity of life that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory, and argues that an intelligent designer intentionally designed life. Through the concepts of irreducible complexity and specified complexity, Dembski argues that intelligent design does not hinder scientific inquiry, but rather can provide new directions for scientific progress.
In his book Intelligent Design, William A. Dembski argues for the theory of intelligent design, which holds that an intelligent being designed life with intention. This is in opposition to the traditional theory of evolution, which holds that life arose by chance and natural selection. Dembski uses the concepts of “irreducible complexity” and “specified complexity” to argue that at least some parts of life are intelligently designed. In this article, I will examine the concepts of irreducible complexity and specified complexity and argue that if these concepts are present in life, it is natural to assume that life is intelligently designed. I will also discuss how recognizing intelligent design as a science can benefit scientific progress.
First, let’s talk about irreducible complexity. There are some structures in living organisms that cannot function without just one element, which means that they could not have arisen through gradual evolution. Dembski uses a mousetrap as an example. A mousetrap is composed of a support, a hammer, a spring, a clasp, and a holding rod, without any one of which the mousetrap cannot function. Therefore, a mousetrap cannot be formed gradually through incremental evolution; all the elements must be present at once for it to be fully functional. Dembski’s argument is that such structures are unlikely to arise by chance, as individuals with incomplete mousetraps would be culled by natural selection as a waste of resources. Complexity that is both complex and systematic, that is, complexity that cannot be explained by gradual evolution, is called “irreducible complexity”. Because it is so unlikely to have arisen by gradual evolution, intelligent designers argue that it is reasonable to think that an intelligent designer exists.
Next, let’s look at specified complexity. To understand this, we first need to understand the concepts of “specificity” and “complexity”. Specificity refers to a form that has an appropriate pattern and can be expressed in a short description, while complexity refers to a structure that is unlikely to occur by chance. “Specified complexity” is a combination of both specificity and complexity, which Dembski calls ”complex specific information.” He uses information theory to show that mutation and natural selection alone cannot explain complexity-specific information.
For example, suppose a monkey typed a sentence on a keyboard. The claim would have some credibility if the sentence was either “We” or a random sequence of characters, such as “u fhvsoadlhds fio zihsdflaf ahdfkasddfkjd;sljasdfdvkl”. The former has specificity but no complexity, while the latter has complexity but no specificity. If, on the other hand, the sentence is something like “We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor,” it is unlikely to have been typed by a monkey by chance, because it has both specificity and complexity.
Dembski sees natural selection as a function that matches the elements that are successful in reproducing in the population to the population. According to information theory, when a function substitutes information from the definition into the void, the amount of information is either maintained or decreased. Therefore, assuming that there is complex specific information in the void, it cannot be explained by the function of natural selection alone. Attempts to explain the origin of complex-specific information in the airspace by reversing the process of natural selection are likely to fail due to the lack of information.
Mutation can be viewed as the act of adding a new element to the definition, but complex information cannot be generated by chance mutation alone. Because of its complexity, it cannot be generated by a single mutation, and because of its specificity, it cannot be explained by multiple mutations. Therefore, if complex-specific information exists in the airspace, it either existed in the airspace from the beginning of time or was added by design by an intelligent being somewhere along the way. Therefore, if forms with complex-specific information, or specified complexity, are found in nature, it is reasonable to assume that they are the result of intelligent design.
My argument is that the theory of intelligent design can explain life on Earth better than evolutionary theory and can contribute to the advancement of science. Life on Earth has organs and forms that are difficult for evolutionary theory to explain using concepts such as irreducible complexity or specified complexity. There are indeed organs of complexity that evolutionary theory cannot explain, such as the bacterial flagellum or the blood clotting chain reaction. On the other hand, opponents of intelligent design argue that intelligent design is simply a set of arguments that refute the theory of evolution, and that it hinders scientific inquiry by attributing phenomena to intelligent beings.
While evolutionary theory is not without its contributions to scientific progress, it sometimes provides convenient explanations for things we cannot fully explain. The theory of intelligent design can compensate for these limitations and help us find better answers where evolutionary theory fails to explain. A prime example is the concept of “junk DNA”. According to evolutionary theory, life has evolved without a specific purpose or direction through random mutation and natural selection. From this perspective, scientists viewed seemingly non-functional DNA as a byproduct of evolution and labeled it “junk DNA”. However, recent research has shown that this DNA has a function. An intelligent design perspective would have actively explored the function of DNA from the beginning, and likely would have uncovered it sooner.
Accepting the paradigm that life was designed does not end the study of life, but rather opens the door to new questions. For example, we can explore questions we couldn’t ask before, such as who designed life, how it was designed, and what its purpose was. This works in a similar way in archaeology. When archaeologists study an artifact that was designed by someone, they trace its origins, not the fact that it was designed.
In this way, the theory of intelligent design does not impede scientific progress, nor is it simply a collection of arguments against evolution. Normal science under the current paradigm of evolutionary theory is facing anomalies such as irreducible complexity and specified complexity, which are typical of what happens when a paradigm reaches its limits. Intelligent design is a new paradigm that can explain these anomalies, complementing the limitations of evolutionary theory and offering new perspectives and questions about life. It’s time to step outside the box of evolutionary theory and explore life from a new perspective with an open mind.
