Intelligent design argues that evolutionary theory is limited in its ability to explain the origin and change of life, citing “irreducible complexity” as an example of how the complexity of life cannot be explained by mere chance and natural laws. Dembski uses this to point out that evolutionary theory is not perfect and argues for the existence of a designed element.
Intelligent Design takes a critical look at the theory of evolution as an explanation for the origin and change of life. However, Dembski does not criticize evolutionary theory from the standpoint of biblical creationism, but rather from the ignoring of design in evolutionary theory. The blind spots of evolutionary theory are as follows According to evolutionary theory, the evolution of life proceeds by chance and selection according to natural laws. However, the author questions whether it is possible to evolve from lower organisms to humans solely as a result of chance and natural laws.
He gives several examples (mousetraps, flagella, etc.) and talks about “irreducible complexity”. If any of its components are missing, it cannot fulfill its original function. Dembski argues that the theory of evolution is imperfect and problematic, stating that it is extremely unlikely that the multiple components that make up an organ that performs a function could have been selected by “chance” and “natural law”. Intelligent design is the idea that organisms with “irreducible complexity” evolve over time. Furthermore, although it is not explicitly stated in the text, if one attributes this as-yet-unexplained “intelligent design” to “God,” then one could be said to hold a position of “creative evolutionism.
Dembski’s argument makes sense in some ways. How could life evolve from lower organisms like amoebas to higher organisms like humans through chance (mutations or changes in characteristics) and natural laws (such as the survival of the fittest) alone? However, Dembski points out that the evolution of life cannot be explained by evolutionary theory alone, and argues that there are elements of design. Can we really say that it was designed? I’d like to critique that. Dembski argues for design by denying the existence of necessity, chance, and design as three ways to explain a phenomenon. For example, he argues that the development of the different components of the flagellum to perform their respective functions could not have happened by necessity, nor could it have happened by chance because the probability of it happening is very low. Therefore, he argues that it was designed.
However, one can criticize the calculation of the probability. For example, let’s say there are four flagella. Dembski believes that the evolution of the flagellum’s component organs cannot be attributed to chance because the probability of each organ evolving to function as a flagellum is x. Then, the probability of the 10 component organs evolving to function as flagella is extremely low, x to the 10th power, and therefore the evolution of the flagellum’s component organs cannot be attributed to chance, but to design. But are the probabilities of the evolution of the four organelles independent of each other? Not necessarily. Even if they are not designed by something, different events can be dependent on each other. It would be a mistake to rule out the possibility of coincidence simply because the calculated probabilities are low, assuming that they are independent.
Even if the calculated probability is low, it is also a mistake to quickly rule out the possibility of chance. It depends on the perspective from which you calculate the probability. One of the reasons that life is able to thrive on Earth is because of its distance from the sun. What are the odds that the Sun and Earth were at the same distance when they formed? It’s probably very small, so Dembski thinks it was designed. Let’s look at it another way. Suppose the Sun and Earth were a few hundred kilometers closer or farther apart than they are now. Would the distance be too great for life to exist on Earth? No. The distance between the Sun and Earth would still be suitable for life, albeit in a different form. It doesn’t have to be exactly the same as it is now.
Another criticism is that it’s too easy to remove the inevitable. In the case of eclipses, the ancient Egyptians considered them to be designed by the gods (a result of their actions). Since eclipses cannot be called inevitable, nor can they be called coincidental, they can be considered a design. However, the way eclipses work as we know them today is the result of chance. Eclipses are a result of the Earth’s rotation and the Moon’s rotation. Similar to these examples, the evolution of organisms may not seem inevitable to us now, but we may see it later. It is difficult to say that the evolution of living things is “designed” at this point.
In response, Dembski says, “Eclipses happen because the sun, earth, and moon are moving in the same orbit and at the same speed as they are now. How can those orbits and velocities be inevitable? The truth is that an eclipse can happen even if the orbits and speeds were different. The orbits and velocities of the planets are not predetermined, only the eclipses that occur for those orbits and velocities.
Dembski is arguing that the unexplained phenomena in evolutionary theory are designed because they cannot be explained by chance or necessity, but we can see from the above that it is not as easy as Dembski says to rule out chance and necessity. In addition, should ‘design’ be a concept to explain phenomena that evolutionary theory cannot explain? Dembski can be considered to hold a ‘creative evolutionism’ position in that he attributes ‘intelligent design’ to God, which evolutionary theory cannot yet explain. In other words, he attempts to explain evolutionary phenomena from a religious perspective. In this sense, Dembski does not have the ‘value neutrality of science’ in the sociological sense. In other words, it is possible that Dembski did not suppress his feelings or value judgments about evolutionary phenomena. It could also be criticized that Dembski’s ideas and attitudes are not neutral because they come from a religious perspective.
Furthermore, it is worth considering recent scientific findings as a rebuttal to Dembski’s claims. For example, biologists are increasingly providing explanations for how increasingly complex biological systems could have evolved through natural selection. Research is being conducted on how complex structures could have developed step by step through the mechanisms of gene duplication, mutation, and natural selection. These studies have led to a reexamination of the concept of “irreducible complexity” and are helping us to understand how natural processes can form complex biological systems.
In the end, Dembski’s arguments and the criticisms of them are part of a complex debate at the intersection of science, philosophy, and religious perspectives. These debates can contribute to deepening our understanding of the origin and development of life, and the insights that each perspective provides can help us pursue a more comprehensive understanding.
