Empirical Doubts

It will do not good in this discussion to divert attention from the matter at hand --- the merits of Evolution Theory and Intelligent Design Theory --- by making assertions about the people who defend them. It would be perfectly simple to argue that evolutionary biologists are atheists who mindlessly apply Darwin's theory with no critical thought, and to thereby dismiss any evidence they offer; it would likewise be simple to disregard the arguments of Intelligent Design theorists because we assume them to be neo-Creationists who want to put God in the Biology texbooks. Perfectly simple, but fallacious. Argumentum ad hominem --- arguing to the man rather than the facts --- is a fallacy that clear thinkers have fruitfully avoided for many centuries. One must stick to considering the arguments and evidence if one hopes to discover any truth in this matter. It is, after all, quite possible that someone might come to have certain beliefs for what we think are bad reasons or with unsavory motives, but that those beliefs might still be true. Now to the matter at hand.

There have been many attempts to demonstrate (in some sense of that word) the existence of God. Although Intelligent Design does not purport to do that, it does stand in a line of descent from one of these arguments.

There have been ontological arguments (formulated most famously by Anselm) in which one deduces the existence of God from our idea of God. There have been cosmological arguments in which one deduces the existence of a first cause (God) from the fact that every event that has been, has been caused, thus either one must think that causes stretch back indefinitely, or there must have been a first cause. Both of these lines of argument have since been widely discredited.

There are, however, teleological arguments for the existence of God: human beings are goal-directed, and things in nature seem to be so too. Worms seem to be exist for the purpose of composting the dead leaves on the forest floor, and the bat seems to exist for the purpose of swallowing up tons of bugs so we are not overun with them. Yet most modern philosophers agree that this is an anthropomorphism, a projection of our way of thinking onto nature, especially since modern science has been able to describe and predict the natural world very effectively without the notion of purposes.

But still, in the biological sciences one must admit that each species is very well-adapted to what it does --- almost as if it were designed to be that way. Enter William Paley (1802), who makes an analogical argument: we readily recognize when something is designed for a human purpose, such as a watch. So why can't we recognize that we as complex, well-adapted organisms are desgined by God? Then Darwin (1859) came along with a theory that explained the adaptation without recourse to teleology.

Intelligent Design theorists, in essence, have updated Paley's analogical argument, and have dropped the reference to 'God'. They have combined this with a multipronged attack on Evolution Theory, which they term 'Darwinism'. According to the Access Resource Network website (which propagates the writings of Intelligent Design theorists), it should be characterized in this way:

Called intelligent design (ID), to distinguish it from earlier versions of design theory (as well as from the naturalistic use of the term design), this new approach is more modest than its predecessors. Rather than trying to infer God's existence or character from the natural world, it simply claims 'that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable.' (Dembski 1999, 106)

What is Evolution Theory? I have already discussed that it is not based solely on chance processes, but let us characterize it more carefully. McNulty (2002) identifies five assertions (termed 'theories') in Darwin's work:

1. Species Are Not Immutable: given enough relative change, groups with common ancestry will not be able to or will choose not to mate.
2. Evolution Is Gradual: Spontaneous, large scale change is not possible. Between two largely differing points in the ancestry, it will be possible to find an intermediate stage of development.
3. Evolution Is Driven By Natural Selection: populations are variable; some variations give a differential advantage in numbers of offspring; some of those variations are genetic and will be passed on.
4. Evolution Leads to Speciation: Granting Assertion 3 leads to a mechanism by which the truth of Assertion 1 is manifested.
5. All Organisms Share a Single, Common Ancestry: This is an conclusion which follows from all of the previous assertions.

Now that we have clarified what is on the table, here are the questions and allegations that can be addressed. Each one will have a link back to this page. (These questions are based on those listed and answered by Rennie (2002) and McNulty (2002).)

• Is Intelligent Design theory scientific?
• Evolution has never been observed.
• Evolution is not falsifiable.
• Evolution is not a fact, it is only a theory.
• Scientists are beginning to doubt that Evolution Theory is true.
• If humans descended from apes, why are there still apes?
• Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on Earth.
• We have never seen a new species evolve.
• Evolution might happen on a small scale, but it can't account for all of the species we see.
• There are gaps in the fossil record.
• The evolution of complex species violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (The Law of Entropy).
• Some complex adaptations could not have arisen gradually, like wings or the eye.
• On the cellular level, biochemical processes exhibit irreducible complexity.

After having read this page, I suppose it may still be possible to believe that a complex adaptation like the eye constitutes proof of a creator God or an intelligent designer, and could not possibly be the result of the processes posited in Evolution Theory, even if they are empirically well-confirmed. Therefore please continue to Proof of Design to complete the discussion.