Lesson 8 – Intelligent Design

The Lord by wisdom founded the earth; By understanding He established the heavens.

-- Proverbs 3:19

When I first started studying, I saw the world as composed of particles. Looking more deeply I discovered waves. Now after a lifetime of study, it appears that all existence is the expression of information.

-- Scientist John Wheeler

A 1998 survey by the Skeptics’ Society found that among highly educated Americans, the #1 reason for believing in God was seeing “good design” and “complexity” in the world. At the heart of design theory is the fact that it can be empirically tested. That’s not good enough to qualify it as science according to Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the most prominent evolution advocacy group. She told CNN that, “design theory is not very good science, because it’s basically giving up and saying: We can’t explain this; therefore, God did it.”

If you listen closely to the science programs on TV you will hear regularly talk of “the designs of nature” and “the blueprint for life,” but when pressed for what the scientists mean by this talk they will explain, as does Richard Dawkins, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” In other words, one can replace the principle of design by blind, unconscious processes and produce the same thing. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, admits that, “The cell is thus a minute factory, bustling with rapid, organized chemical activity,” but then he goes on to say, “Nature invented the assembly line some billions of years before Henry Ford.” “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but evolved.” Crick and Dawkins want us to believe that natural selection achieves the same aspect of purpose without the intervention of a "purposer;" and that it has produced a great plan without the action of a planner. As they see it, scientists who see Intelligent Design (ID) in nature can’t imagine any naturalistic way to explain the high level of complexity in nature – so they give up. But these critics are missing the point. This is not about imagination. It’s a matter of logic. What’s the most plausible theory that matches all the observed facts -- chance or design?

As we discussed in Lesson 4, the same debate arises when astronomers look into the far reaches of the universe. What they discover is that the universe either “just happens” to be exactly calibrated to support life; or that is the product of intention – it’s been designed that way (Anthropic Principle). It’s amazing how far agnostic and atheistic scientists will go to avoid the possible inference of a Designer. It’s a “totally emotional and a dangerous reaction,” says David Gross the director of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, “it smells of religion and intelligent design.”

The most powerful evidence for design is right here on planet Earth -- in the structure of the DNA code. Just the fact that it is called a “code” gives us a clue as to what we really have discovered. Even atheist Richard Dawkins admits, “Genetics has become a branch of information technology.” And, “The genetic code is truly digital, in exactly the same sense as are computer codes. This is not some vague analogy, it is literal truth,” he exclaims. But how do we determine if something is a code (information) requiring a coder, or a something that can be produced either by chance or by natural law? ID theorist and mathematician William Demski explains that there are only three types of explanations for the origin of the information content of an object or event: (1) chance – produced by random events, (2) law – produced by some observable natural law or algorithm, (3) design – produced by an intelligent agent. As we will learn in this lesson, design is the best explanation for the origin of what we find in the DNA code.

Intelligent Design -- what does Scripture teach?

The Bible clearly teaches that, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” No matter how grand a "neo-Darwinian Synthesis" is proposed, evolutionary theory can offer no starting point (no “first cause”), and as we saw in the last lesson -- no explanation for the origin of the living cell, which is the basis of all life. Agnostic evolutionists must hold on to a faith position that something yet to be discovered will eventually explain how the evolutionary mechanism got started and works. On the other hand, the Bible clearly states that God is the Creator and Designer of all things. John 1:1-4 says: “In the beginning was the Word (Greek: “logos” - the original Designer), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.” Scripture clearly teaches throughout, and it is well summarized in the first chapter of John, that God:

• in Jesus Christ (identified as the Word) is the eternal. self-existent Designer and Creator of time, space, matter, energy and life


• is an infinitely intelligent and powerful personal Spirit Being who is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), and omnipresent (everywhere present)


• in Jesus Christ created everything with purpose and design in mind


• ultimately directs all things to accomplish His will and purpose

Evolution teaches that the universe and life were the result of purposeless random activity, assembled by chance encounters of molecules and directed by natural selection; there was no “agent” of design, it is entirely “undirected.” Scripture teaches that the whole of creation gives the “appearance of design” because, in fact, it was designed!

What is “design?”

Design is a little hard to define. Someone once said that, “Seeing design is a little like pornography. It’s hard to define, but you sure know what it is when you see it!” Design is the purposeful arrangement of parts. One infers that something (a system) has been designed when:

• The system shows that it has a number of separate components that are ordered to accomplish a purpose, which none of the components could do by themselves (irreducible complexity)


• There is no gradual route for producing the system. All the components arrive at the right time and are assembled into the right configuration to function when needed


• The components of the system interact with great specificity to do something purposeful. As the number and quality of the components which fit together increases, one becomes more and more confident of the conclusion of design

Living organisms are irreducibly complex systems; therefore, we should confidently conclude that they were designed. It is fantasy to believe that an “as yet to be discovered natural process” will explain the design of a living system. Just as it is fantasy to believe that your personal computer could be “manufactured” by shaking together bits of sand, glass and metal in a paper bag. And that the software that directs the hardware was “developed” by shaking together bits of paper and ink. And, that a “chance encounter” of the hardware and software just happened to occur and produced a functioning computer!

Remember the old sci-fi movie 2001 -- the scene with the obelisk on the moon? It was just a chunk of stone yet everybody in the movie theater understood immediately that it was designed. There was no dialog. There didn’t have to be. The conclusion was obvious to everyone. The obelisk was designed by an intelligent agent and placed there by an intelligent agent. The audience would have booed and hissed had anybody asserted that the obelisk arose by purposeless natural random processes. Purposeful design is obvious, even if hard to describe.

SETI and the search for intelligent agency

Much of the evolutionary community believes that since life could take root and flourish on one small planet circling a rather ordinary star, the process is probably repeatable elsewhere in our galaxy. After all, the Milky Way has perhaps 20 billion sun-like stars and the universe has perhaps 100 billion galaxies similar to the Milky Way. Frank Drake, originator of the famous Drake equation[i] and president of the SETI Institute said, “The probability of finding life (in space) is 100%.” In 1992, Congress became enamored with the SETI project and appropriated $100 million for radio telescopes in hopes of discovering intelligent life in outer space.[ii] SETI scientists use the radio telescopes to search for radio “messages” from extraterrestrial intelligent beings who may be attempting to contact us. Success would demonstrate that intelligent life had emerged by evolution elsewhere in the cosmos and that we are not alone. Cosmologist Carl Sagan once said, “If ever we received a single message from space, that would establish the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence.” The assumptions surrounding SETI demonstrate that the possibility of the existence of an unknown intelligent agency is an acceptable scientific hypothesis, even if it is speculative. The operative word is “message” because messages possess information content. What scientists are looking for is information (message) content in the radio signals being received. The 1997 movie Contact developed this theme in an entertaining fashion.

One of the SETI experiments is to transmit a radio signal into space containing information in the form of a factorable mathematical number.[iii] The hope is that if an intelligent recipient is contacted, he, she or it would be able to “speak” the assumed universal language of mathematics and factor the number and transmit the answer back to earth. The SETI community considers any natural mechanism that is able to generate the factors of the transmitted number to be so improbable (impossible) that were it to occur it would be hailed as proof of intelligent agency.

The information content of life

The information content in the simple factoring problem shown in the footnote is trivial when compared to the information content contained in life’s molecules. The genetic coding found in a single molecule of DNA has the information content of an entire encyclopedia. How did the information content in the DNA molecule come into being? The most reasonable hypothesis is that some sort of intelligent agency was responsible for putting it there. We don’t need to identify the source or name of the intelligent agent right away, but we can scientifically conclude with high confidence that life came into being by a “Who” and not a “what.”

The DNA Code – could it be created by chance?

Even though is was popular from Darwin’s day to the end of the 20th century to account for the specified complexity of the DNA code by chance, today these theories have all been completely rejected. It would be like monkeys authoring Shakespeare on a computer. Not a chance! Why? Because chance processes do not give rise to complex, specified information. One doesn’t toss a billion Scrabble pieces up into the air and find that they land in a previously specified pattern, such as one of the world’s best novels. It is no longer even a matter of small probability, or having infinite time, it is now a matter that in principle, chance events can not create specified complex information. As a result, virtually all origin-of-life researchers today have abandoned theories based on the chance assembly of the first living molecule and the living cell.

The DNA Code – could it be created by natural law?

A second possibility is that the DNA code can be accounted for by some law of nature. This is the most recent view among many scientists – life and its DNA code arose by natural forces that are contained within the matter itself. The most widely used graduate textbook expounding this theory has been, Biochemical Predestination, which theorizes that there are forces within matter itself that ”predestines” the chemical compounds to line up in just the right sequence to create the code. For well over 30 years the authors of the text have been involved in experimentation to test this theory. The result has been that all experimentation has failed. Why? Because natural laws in principle do not produce codes. Natural laws only produce results that are regular (e.g., the sun coming up and going down every day); repeatable (e.g., every time I throw the ball up in the air it comes down); and predictable (e.g., I bet tomorrow the sun will come up and I’ll be able to play ball). Codes (information), on the other hand are not regular; not repeatable; and not predictable -- that’s why they are called “codes;” there is a certain mystery about them. One cannot develop Hamlet by a formula, e.g., by “macro” in a computer program -- each letter and sequence has to be pre-specified by the programmer or wordsmith.[iv]

The same is true of the DNA code. Each cell in our bodies contains DNA codes that would fill more that the 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. There are no laws that would cause the “letters” in the DNA code to line up in the particular way they do in a living cell. In principle, law-like processes do not generate the high-information content that we find in the DNA code.

The DNA Code – could it be created by design?

The only remaining possibility is that the DNA code arose by design. Does the DNA code fit the criteria for design? Even according to Richard Dawkins, “The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” And, “Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.” Paul Davies, professor of mathematical physics and noted author, writes that DNA is a “genetic databank that transmits information using the genetic code.” He says that scientists who are still attempting to find a natural law solution to the genetic code are addressing the question at “the wrong conceptual level.” Instead of chance or natural law producing the DNA code, what we find is that DNA is neither random (chance) nor regular (law). Rather it exhibits “specified complexity” which is the hallmark of design. Modern genetics seems to be telling us that life is the product of a designer.

What is intelligent agency?

Whenever we recognize a sequence of meaningful symbols (e.g., handwriting) we assume it is the handiwork of an intelligent agent. Molecular biology should lead us to conclude that the “messages” “encoded” in the DNA of a living organism must have originated with an intelligent agent. Yet, this obvious theory is never postulated by evolutionary science. The fact is this self-evident conclusion is not even allowed to be postulated by the current scientific establishment. Why should the establishment have the power to prevent one from acknowledging evidence for intelligent agency when it is a perfectly acceptable scientific hypothesis? It is no less than prejudice, bias, and dogmatism that prevent a hypothesis such as “intelligent agency” from being seriously considered. Is the evolutionary biologist concerned that such evidence might lead to scientific evidence for the God-hypothesis? Naturalistic science does not have a monopoly on knowledge. G. K. Chesterton once observed, “We don't know enough about the unknown to know that it is unknowable.” Science must be open to pursue truth no matter where it may lead, even intelligent agency. Science does not know enough to reject Intelligent Design out of hand.

Can we scientifically discover intelligent agency?

Yes! We do it every day in our experience with the natural world. We do it by inferring design from observational data. Just by using common sense we can know if an event or object originated by purposeful, premeditated behavior; or by happenstance. At the scene of a car accident we might ask, “Was the hit-and-run an accident or was it premeditated murder?” We are able to decide by the evidence. We can look at Mt. Rushmore and Mt. Everest and conclude that the first was designed by intelligent agency, and the second by natural forces. Whole industries have been developed based on knowing the difference between chance and design, e.g., insurance companies, patent offices, detective agencies. Observation is a fundamental foundation of science and it tells us that natural processes do not give rise to complex structures that contain high information content -- be it Mt. Rushmore, a message in the sand such as ‘Romeo loves Juliet”, or a living cell. Natural processes alone cannot explain the exceptionally high level of design (information content) of these entities.

Living systems possess “information content”

Life consists not just of matter and energy, but of matter, energy and information. Information is not reducible to matter and energy alone. It is a different kind of “stuff” altogether. A theory of life has to explain, not just the origin of the matter, but also the independent origin of its information content. Complex specified information of the kind found in a book; or in the DNA sequence of a biological cell; cannot be produced by chance, or solely at the direction of physical and chemical laws.

Sometimes natural entities, such as a snowflake, are given as examples of structures with complex specified information content that are formed by natural processes. Snowflakes and other apparently complex natural structures, however, are not good examples. A snowflake has low information content because it contains a highly repetitive order. Anything with repetitive order has low information content, even if it is unique. The natural laws that form the snowflake actually prevent more complex ordering (information content) from emerging. As one of my professors, Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith[v] was fond of saying, “Information consists of surprise (non-predictable) effects.” Anything with highly repetitive order has predictable information content, not surprise effects. The distinction between the information content of a snowflake (low information content) and something with a lot of surprise effects, like a DNA molecule (high information content), is like the difference between the Shakespearean play Romeo and Juliet and a book the same size containing the phrase, “Romeo and Juliet,” repeated 100,000 times. There is little information content in the latter, even though it is titled the same and contains the same number of words as the play.

If the information content in a single strand of DNA were written out in words it would fill an entire encyclopedia – and it would be unique content, i.e., high information content. A single cell contains millions of strands of DNA, and a single human body contains hundreds of trillions of cells. Are natural causes capable of producing such design and information content? Absolutely not! That would be tantamount to going to the beach and finding the phrase “Romeo and Juliet” (quotes, fonts and all!) formed by the random interaction of the waves on the grains of sand. Or, a whole Shakespearean play suddenly appearing on your Internet home page “authored” by a million networked computer hackers randomly accessing your website![vi] This is beyond the bounds of sensibility. When we find a complex message with high information content coded into the DNA of a cell, it is most reasonable to conclude that an intelligent agent coded that message. At minimum, it certainly is a reasonable scientific theory. And, for the theory it is reasonable to conclude that an “intelligence” is the causing mechanism.

Natural selection has no power to create “complex information”

Evolutionary evangelist Richard Dawkins attributes creative power and intelligent agency to the mechanism of natural selection. To illustrate, in his book The Blind Watchmaker,[vii] Dawkins demonstrates how a meaningful text like, ”ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL” from Hamlet can be obtained in a rather short time by a computer program generating random letters from the alphabet. In the scenario, Dawkins generates random letters from the alphabet and “keeps” every letter that fits into the appropriate letter position, and “rejects” every letter that doesn’t. It is sort of like what happens on the TV program Wheel of Fortune. In not too long a time the phrase, M E T H I N K S I T I S L I K E A W E A S E L, appears, filling in the blanks. Dawkins’ readers don’t seem to understand that this is just a trick. All it illustrates is that it was necessary from the beginning for an intelligent agent (Dawkins or Vanna White) to have a target phrase in mind. That person acts as an intelligent agent to sort through the letters generated. It is not a “creative power” by the random number generator that does it. The intelligent agent sorts through the random generation of letters and decides which ones to keep and where to put them. If anything, this is an illustration of the mechanism of intelligent agency at work; not of chance and natural selection. The computer program generates letters by chance, but the person sorting through the letters is the intelligent agent who “knows” which letters to select and where they belong. Chance and natural selection have no creative power of their own.

Can we postulate a scientific test to detect transcendent Intelligent Agency?

If transcendent intelligent design were discernable on scientific grounds, theists would be able to insist that there is a scientific basis for postulating the God-hypothesis. Such a scientific test would have to demonstrate that a hypothetical Intelligent Agent surpasses, in actuality and in principle, the intelligence of any possible finite rational agent in the universe. William Dembski has postulated such a test.[viii]

If ever a SETI communication were received that solved a problem that was not capable of being solved (even in principle) by a finite intelligence, but whose solution was verifiable -- that would do it. There are examples of such problems in computer science; they are called oracles. One such oracle is to factor a thousand-digit number into its smallest possible factors (i.e., its prime factors). If a solution (i.e., the primes of a thousand digit number) were proposed, it could be either verified or falsified simply by multiplying the proposed factors together. If the result matched the given original number, then the proposed answer is verified. This oracle cannot be solvable directly by mathematics. It cannot even be solved by computerized trial and error – it is too complex. In fact, its solution is beyond the computational capability of all the possible computing resources in the entire universe! Therefore, if the proposed oracle were solved in a received SETI communication, we would have to reject “randomness and chance” as possible mechanisms since otherwise would violate every conceivable canon of statistical reasoning. Chance or luck is simply not plausible, even in principle. If the received solution was verified, one would have to conclude that it was performed by a super-intelligent (transcendent) agent. Science would be driven to the conclusion that a “super-natural” Intelligence Agent was the solver of the problem. We could not avoid postulating that the Intelligence Agent is transcendent.

A proposed test for discovering a transcendent Intelligent Agent

The mathematical problem 37 x 51= 1961 is easily solvable left-to-right by simple multiplication, or right-to-left by trial and error factoring. The 4-digit result (1961) has two factors (37 and 51).



As you increase the number of digits of the “result” from four digits to a thousand digits the problem becomes unsolvable in the “factoring” (trial and error) direction. There would be practically an infinite number of trials required to find the “factors,” even by infinitely powerful computers. The problem is readily solvable, however, in the “multiplication” direction. If a set of numbers were proposed as the prime factors, one simply multiplies the proposed factors together to verify that the product is the original thousand digit number. However, to factor a thousand-digit number into its primes requires much more that 10¹⁵⁰ calculations. There are not enough computing resources in the entire universe to make that number of calculations. If we were to build the fastest possible computer imaginable we could do no better than use every elementary particle in the universe (10⁸⁰) as a memory bit, and run it at the maximum possible theoretical clock speed that matter can be switched (10⁴⁵ cycles per second). And, if we let this fantasy computer calculate for a length of time billions of times longer than the universe has existed or is expected to exist (say 10²⁴ seconds), at the end of its run-time, the computer would still not have accomplished 10¹⁵⁰ calculations.

The information content of living things far exceeds that of the proposed oracle. Therefore, we can legitimately infer transcendent intelligent agency as the source of the information content. Likewise, we can scientifically conclude the legitimacy of inferring transcendent intelligent agency as the source of the information content within living systems. Only pre-existing bias keeps Intelligent Design out of the discussion.

Is naturalistic science scientifically stultifying?

The problem of not seeing intelligent design in the cosmos doesn’t lie with the evidence, it lies with the method of inquiry. Naturalism, the philosophical basis of modern science, arbitrarily excludes Intelligent Design from rational consideration. Evolutionary science demands that only naturalistic explanations be allowed. Science seems to be concerned that giving any room for consideration to a transcendent intelligent agent would undermine legitimate inquiry and breed superstition in its place. Ian Barbour said,[ix] “We would submit that it is scientifically stultifying to say of any puzzling phenomenon that it is ‘incapable of scientific explanation’ for such an attitude would undercut the motivation for inquiry … [and] also lead to another form of the ‘God of the gaps’ (explanations) to cover the ignorance of what may later be shown to have natural causes.” C. A. Coulson put it another way,[x] “When we come to the scientific unknown, our correct policy is not to rejoice because we have found God; it is to become better scientists.” Such attitudes close down consideration of intelligent agency from the start. This is hardly an intellectually unbiased environment. To this way of thinking, any appeal to intelligent agency is not just a violation of scientific dogma but a descent into rank superstition. However, this thinking confuses theories of intelligent agency that arise because we have exhausted the full range of natural causes with, “appeals to God” that mask our ignorance. Scientists must (and do) know that the resources of the universe are limited and exhaustible. At some point naturalistic explanations lose their monopoly as the only legitimate explanatory strategy. Science seldom discusses these limitations, hence, naturalism ends up perpetuating a prejudice that hinders inquiry. Naturalism has been extremely successful in fostering the myth that its explanations are intrinsically superior to non-naturalistic explanations. Actually, it is naturalism’s self-righteous attitude that is limiting and destructive to the pursuit of knowledge, not Intelligent Design.

Suppose God really exists and He does things in the world; and He actually intends for us to know about Him. Naturalism would be blocking the way of inquiry and would be “scientifically stultifying.” Any naturalistic explanation of God’s acts of creation would be incorrect and lead us to wrong conclusions.

What evidence makes it reasonable to conclude “intelligent design” occurred?

Our current understanding of the creation of the universe and of living systems is a good place to start. According to astrophysicists, the universe arose out of nothing a finite time in the past. One of the most fundamental postulates of science is that it is a violation of all natural law for effects to occur without a cause. Therefore, it is reasonable to postulate a cause for the creation of the universe which is beyond (transcends) the universe, i.e., a transcendent Creator who is self-existent (uncaused) and is the initial cause of all things.

Biochemists have discovered that living organisms are irreducibly complex systems made up of living cells that are themselves irreducibly complex systems. Living systems appear to be designed. It should be an affront to the scientific community to see the incredible design of living systems and not be able to infer a designer. If Richard Dawkins can infer a blind (or unconscious?) watchmaker, it is just as reasonable (or perhaps more so) to infer an intelligent designer. I am not advocating censoring Mr. Dawkins’ hypothesis. I am advocating allowing for the scientific consideration of Intelligent Design. Either hypothesis should be allowed to stand or fall on its own merit since neither is totally provable, nor falsifiable. The evidence more conclusively shows that cells are living molecular structures which could not possibly have arisen by the chance interaction of non-living molecules. It is more scientifically reasonable to postulate that living molecular machines that are the result of design. There are no other options. Either something is designed or it isn’t!

Famous British atheistic philosophers look at the evidence for ID

Bertrand Russell stated in his book, Why I Am Not a Christian, that if upon dying he were in the presence of God and asked why he hadn’t believed he would simply answer, “not enough evidence.” Many atheists and agnostics consider God, if He exists at all, too secretive (or perhaps indifferent) to give us convincing proofs of his existence -- “God shouldn’t act like that.” Woody Allen amusingly put it this way, “If only God would give me some clear sign; like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss bank.” Since “clear” signs (to them) are not available, God does not exist; or He is asleep or doesn’t care. In any case, God isn’t relevant to the skeptic. One thing the skeptic never considers however: If God exists, then it is not important what he thinks about God, it is only important what God thinks of him! The skeptic better hope, with all fingers and toes crossed, that he or she is right.

After decades of having been a leading champion of atheism, British philosophy professor Anthony Flew concluded at age 81 (he became an atheist at 15) that some sort of intelligence must have created the universe. In an AP news release of Dec. 9, 2004, Flew said that “It (God) could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and purpose.” He made his conclusion on the basis of scientific evidence: that a super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature. He said his current ideas have some similarities with American “intelligent design” theorists. Flew makes his revelation known in a new video, Has Science Discovered God? For those who worry that a belief in Intelligent Design will unleash Biblical Fundamentalism on the scientific panorama, Flew also says, “I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots; cosmic Saddam Husseins!”

Why isn’t the evidence for design “resoundingly obvious” to everyone?

If God exists, why is he so subtle? If a Creator exists, surely He would spare no pain in making Himself evident, some say. “Unless the Creator hits me with a sledgehammer, I will remain unconvinced,” the skeptic says. Since God does not “hit us with sledgehammers,” He must not exist. No evidence of design is ever judged sufficient to implicate the designer. Of course, this view removes all possibility that God might just want to be subtle in His design. Historically, science has judged the world a subtle place in which inquiry succeeds only through labor, creative insight, and faith in its philosophical presuppositions. The scientific discovery process is not a matter of seeing the obvious right away. Quite the contrary, the scientific enterprise is a very creative piece of detective work, discovering how the cosmos works from very limited information. The proper course of inquiry should not be to prejudge the evidence against design, but rather consider what evidence there is for design; and ask if it makes sense. It is arrogant and dogmatic to assume that a designer must be ostentatious and put “designer labels” on everything the way a worldly designer would do. Perhaps the Deity’s humility reveals something about His character? Perhaps God is so much higher (ontologically speaking) than we, that for Him to be ostentatious with evidence trivializes his transcendence? That’s what the Christian conception of God claims in the Bible. I don’t want a God who is so insecure that He must do parlor tricks to get people’s attention. Isn’t the creation evidence enough? God says that the creation itself gives sufficient evidence for anybody (even a child) to “know” that the Creator exists. Those who disbelieve after thoughtfully considering the creation do so willfully, not because the evidence is insufficient.

The Anthropic Principle

As previously discussed, astrophysics continues to find evidence for God through the subtleties of the creation as well as the dramatic events (such as the creation of the universe via a big bang). Scientists have discovered that life can exist only in an extremely narrow range of physical conditions and constants (e.g., temperature range, distance from the sun, size of the moon, position of the solar system within the Milky Way, etc.), which is a statistical impossibility to occur by chance. These findings are known as the Anthropic Principle. Each year scientists discover additional life variables that, if not precisely tuned, would destroy (not support) life. Scientists are amazed at the incredible fine-tuning of the universe. British astrophysicists Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose have calculated that the probability that the variables associated with the Anthropic Principle could have arisen by chance is one chance in 10 to the power of 10¹²³! This is a number so incredibly small that it is unintelligible to propose a chance hypothesis. Agnostic scientists are not only without naturalistic theories to propose, they are confronted with compelling scientific evidence for intelligent design of the universe as well as for life in it.

The arguments against Intelligent Design

One of the fundamental arguments against intelligent design by an all-powerful God is that the world is so “imperfect.” That is, living systems have too many “design flaws,” e.g., the vestigial human appendix apparently doesn’t have a purpose; neither does “junk DNA” nor the Panda’s thumb (5 fingers and a non-opposable thumb at the wrist), etc. An omniscient and omnipotent Designer would have done it differently, the argument goes. But that is just a “science-of-the-gaps” argument. New discoveries, in fact, keep filling in the “gaps” – the human appendix is now known to have a biological function; junk DNA may not be junk after all; and the location of the Panda’s thumb in her wrist has been found to assist her in gathering bamboo.

The critic assumes that the goal of the designer was “engineering excellence” as defined by a human engineer. The “resource-limited” critic sets himself up as judge of the “resource-unlimited” God. There are many other conceivable and noble goals that an omnipotent Creator might have had in mind -- for one: built-in obsolescence. The Creator tells us that His ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts higher than our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8, 9). At an art gallery, one sees all forms of creative expression that may be indiscernible to a critic who has a predetermined evaluative mechanism. The critic may assume that he or she knows the mind of the artist, but the critic is just asserting an opinion. Only the artist knows his or her original intention and he or she may not always choose to communicate it. In the case of the God of the Bible – He is the Great Artist as well as the Great Engineer.

The “problem of evil”[xi] is another fundamental argument against intelligent design by an intelligent God. Although this is an extremely important question, it is beside the point when discussing what evidence exists for design. The “argument from evil” and the Christian’s view of man’s “free will” are very relevant to the discussion, but only after God as an Intelligent Designer can be postulated. The question can then move to, “What kind of God would allow evil and suffering in the world?” This argument shouldn’t divert one before the issue of the possibility of an Intelligent Agent is settled.

The Explanatory Filter for determining Intelligent Design

Henry Schaeffer III, one of the world’s most distinguished physical scientists, says that “William Dembski is perhaps the very brightest of a new generation of scholars willing to challenge the most sacred 20th century intellectual idol – the unproven notion that all of life can be explained in terms of natural selection and mutations.” In his books, Intelligent Design, (InterVaristy Press, 1999), and The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press, 1998), Dembski develops the mathematical theory -- the “Explanatory Filter” -- necessary to be able to make a scientific inference of Intelligent Design.

The Explanatory Filter faithfully represents the ordinary human practice of sorting through information to attribute to an object or an event: (1) regularity -- natural law or formula, (2) chance, or (3) design. These are our only options. To infer design one conceptually steps through an “explanatory filter” as shown in the following figure. This process can apply to scientifically and logically reasoning through the recognition of design. It can apply to everyday personal decision making. It can apply in our legal system where courts can sentence people to the death penalty. Stepping through the decision-making process established by the Explanatory Filter applies to entire disciplines and industries that depend on “inferring design” –

• Archaeologists deciphering ancient inscriptions


• The copyright and patent office identifying theft of intellectual property


• Insurance companies keeping themselves from getting ripped off


• Detectives employing circumstantial evidence to prosecute criminals (case in point -- the November, 2004 Scott Peterson murder trial where all the evidence is circumstantial)
• 
  
• Forensic scientists deducing who was at the scene of a crime


• Skeptics debunking the claims of parapsychologists


• Researchers uncovering data falsification


• Scientists in the SETI program attempting to detect extraterrestrial intelligences (remember the movie Contact?)


• Statisticians and computer scientists distinguishing random from non-random strings of digits

In order to conclude the “design” of an object or an event three facts must be established:

Contingency – That is, that there are no natural laws or algorithms that would explain it. The object or event in question is not the result of an automatically pre-determined and therefore unintelligent process.

Complexity – One must ensure that the object or event is not so simple that it can be readily explained by chance. It must have high complexity, i.e., a very small probability of occurrence.

Specification – One must ensure that the complex object or event fits an independent specified pattern that is characteristic of intelligence, i.e. it is not a pattern one is imposing, but it is a pattern already in existence made by an independent and objective intelligent source.

If the object or the event is both highly complex (i.e., it is improbable) and fits an independently specified recognizable pattern, then it possesses “specified complexity” which determines that it has been “designed” and possesses high information content.

This is a reliable criterion for detecting design strictly from the observational features of the world. Design has compelling statistical justification belonging to the world of science, not to the world of metaphysics and theology as ID’s critics maintain.

The process to achieve a conclusion of design is shown in the following figure.




Complex Specified Information (CSI)

The great myth of evolutionary biology is that the high “information content” required of a biological system can be “obtained on the cheap” without recourse to intelligence. As we have discussed in a previous lesson, information is not reducible to matter and energy alone. It is a different kind of stuff altogether. High information content can only be obtained by processing through the criteria shown in the Explanatory Filter.

First, the information must be contingent, i.e., it is not the result of natural law or formula, but dependent on some cause. Next, it must be complex, i.e., it must have a small probability of occurrence. And finally, it must be specified, i.e., it must conform to an independent and pre-existing pattern that is recognizable. Contingent information that is both complex and specified is called “CSI” (complex specified information). CSI is rapidly becoming a well developed scientific area of research, not just in biology but in all areas of science. It has very practical applications in the information age in which we live. For example, the specified complexity of our credit card numbers assure that a thief cannot randomly pick a number and have it turn out to be valid.

Evolutionary biology is just beginning to realize that it needs to be re-conceptualized in terms of information theory. The Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection -- being a trial-and-error process in which mutation supplies the error and selection the trial -- is not capable of generating CSI. The only known source for generating CSI is intelligence!

Intelligent Design will liberate scientific inquiry – and society!

Many scientists remain unconvinced about the credibility of Intelligent Design being a legitimate scientific enterprise. They say – “So what?” if we have a reliable criterion for detecting design, and “So what?” if that criterion tells us that biological systems are designed. How is looking at a biological system and inferring design any better than shrugging our shoulders and saying “God did it?” Their fear is that design cannot help but stifle scientific inquiry.

On the contrary, Intelligent Design will foster scientific inquiry whereas traditional evolutionary theory stifles it. Consider “junk DNA,” for example. Implicit in this term is the evolutionary view that the genome has been cobbled together through chance and natural selection so that a lot of useless (junk) DNA is to be expected. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we would expect DNA to exhibit function. Design encourages scientists to look for function whereas evolution discourages it. Consider “vestigial organs” such as the human appendix or coccyx (tail bone). According to evolutionary theory, certain organs are no longer of selective benefit. Design, however, encourages scientists to look for function, whereas evolution discourages it. The appendix and coccyx are now both known to be functional body parts. Reinstating design within science can only enrich science as design raises a whole new set of research questions. Once we know something is designed, we will want to know how it was produced; what purpose it has; and how optimal the design is?

Intelligent Design will also better society. Consider, for example, that design implies constraints. Transgress those constraints and the object functions poorly or breaks. We can discover what works and doesn’t work just by observing what happens when the apparent boundaries are pushed. This research will provide understanding in societal ethics, for example, as well as in science. What behaviors of society promote health? Crossing which boundaries will degenerate a society? By avoiding design, science has for too long operated with an inadequate set of conceptual categories – particularly in our information age, and especially now when design is empirically detectable. In the past we have had a constricted vision of reality, skewing not only how science understands the world, but also understanding ourselves. Evolutionary psychology, for example, justifies everything from infanticide to adultery and is just one symptom of this inadequate conception of science. Barring design from science distorts science, making it a mouthpiece for naturalism instead of a search for truth. To reinstate design within science is to liberate science -- freeing it from restrictions that were arbitrarily spawned by Darwinism and today has become intolerable.

Christian response

Romans 1 and 2 inform us that the “Intelligent Designer” is a Self-existent, eternal, all-powerful Being exists who is transcendent to the material universe. One of the most important evidences of this Being’s existence is the creation itself. Nothing comes from nothing. Only a Being who is eternally self-existent can make a (material) something exist at a particular Self-willed “time.” The Bible says that this is self-evident, even to the smallest child. Since God is the Creator, He is Sovereign over all things, including His created creatures. Hence, He is the Lawgiver (both physical and moral) -- He makes the rules. All this, Scripture says, is “clearly seen” by looking outwardly at the expanse and fine-tuning of the created universe, and the specified complexity of living organism, as well as inwardly to the moral law “written on our hearts.” God’s existence is “clearly evident” to the created creatures, but most “willfully reject” acknowledging God and in doing so their thinking becomes futile and foolish. Because of mankind’s rejection of God, He has been “given us over to a depraved mind.” Man is “without excuse” for not discerning God directly from the creation and from his own conscience. Evil and suffering are the consequences of our free and our willful rejection of God. One day God, through Jesus Christ, will judge each and every person who ever lived. All this is summarized in the Romans 1:18-2:16:

…mankind suppresses the truth (about God) because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore, God gave them over in the lust of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions … And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful … (mankind) shows the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when … God will judge the secrets of mankind through Jesus Christ.

Creation and design as taught in the Bible, is not only a worthy hypothesis, it is also a worthy ethical assumption. Man’s moral condition and ultimate fate, Scripture says, is a direct result of his willfully choosing to have faith in things other than God.

------

[i] The Drake equation can be used to estimate the number of advanced alien civilizations in the Milky Way whose radio emissions are detectable. Obviously the equation has yet to produce any tangible results and the formula is highly debatable. But admirers laud it as a stimulus to scholarly discussion and a way to get people thinking about what it takes to create and find life in the universe.
[ii] During the hearings, Senator William Proxmire quipped that the money would be better spent trying to find intelligent life inside the Beltway!
[iii] “Factoring” is the reverse mathematical operation of multiplication. In the expression 37 x 51= 1961, the operation “37 times 51” is called multiplication; 1961 is called the “result.” Conversely, the “factors” of 1961 are 37 and 51. “Prime factors” (or “primes”) are the smallest possible factors of a given number. For example, 4, 12, 21 are not prime factors of any number because they can be further factored into smaller factors (i.e., 4 = 2 x 2; 12 = 2 x 2 x 3; 21 = 7 x 3). However, 2, 3, 7, 11 … are prime factors because they cannot be factored any further. In the example above, 37 and 51 are the “primes” of 1961 since they cannot be factored any further.
[iv] Dean Kenyon, co-author of Biochemical Predestination has now repudiated his own theory and has become a proponent of Intelligent Design.
[v] The late A. E. Wilder-Smith was a world renowned expert in origin-of-life studies and author of over 50 scientific publications. He held three earned doctorate degrees in science from prestigious European universities.
[vi] This is an updated metaphor of the million monkeys randomly banging away on typewriters and producing Hamlet. Just think the “million-and-first” monkey would contribute to the play!
[vii] The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins, (W. W. Norton, 1986).
[viii] This example adapted from Dembski’s essay in The Creation Hypothesis, J. P. Moreland, editor, (1994).
[ix] Issues in Science and Religion, (London: SCM Press, 1966)
[x] Science and Religion: A Changing Relationship, (Cambridge University Press, 1955).
[xi] In theology this is called theodicy -- an attempt to justify the ways of God to man. The issue of the existence of God and of evil is a very important matter to one considering the claims of any religion. He or she wants to know if that religion commits one to a belief in a God who is evil, or who fails to do good; or is incapable of overcoming evil in the world.