Introduction
Many scholars in the scientific establishment do not accept Intelligent Design as a tested scientific theory. They do not even acknowledge it as one theory that can at least be presented as one of the many schools of thought that educators should offer students in class discussions. They see it as a cunningly devised and a marketed endeavor to initiate religious and Christian thinking to students. In 1987, Creationism was banned by the U.S. Supreme Court because it teaches that God was the Creator who created the world and the whole creation about 6,000 years ago; it was successfully prohibited in public schools on the grounds of the church’s separation from the state. However, William A. Dembski’s argument ‘Intelligent design’ is a piece of text that argues in favor of the superficial theory.
Dembski’s argument
William A. Dembski’s argument and the theory of Intelligent Design is a modern form of argument that is directed towards the establishment of the idea that there is the existence of God or a similar Supreme Being. It states that Darwinian Natural Selection is incorrect because there should be a cosmological force that is responsible for the creation and sustainability of the universe as the universe is so intricately designed that it would be impossible to create it without a creator.
Explanation of Dembski’s argument
William A. Dembski is a firm believer in Intelligent Design. He states, “It is logically possible that God created a world that provides no evidence of design.” (Dembski, 1) However, such logic lacks mathematical or physical evidence and is fundamentally philosophical in nature. But the believers of Intelligent Design defy this logic concerning lack of evidence and convey that such creations are the work of a creator and spontaneous creation is but a fallacy. According to them the creation of the universe is not a work of any ‘Blind Watchmaker’, as proposed by Richard Dawkins, but a conscious Supreme Being. But the concept of a supreme being is more of a belief than a scientific truth or even assumption. Dembski completely refutes Darwin and defies the logic of evolution and conveys that such creations are the work of a creator and spontaneous creation is but a fallacy. According to them the creation of the universe is not a work of any ‘Blind Watchmaker’, as proposed by Richard Dawkins, but a conscious Supreme Being.
Dembski and believers of Intelligent Design believe that the world could just as well be the reality in eternity rather than be considered a machine as “intelligent design’s central claim is that only intelligent causes adequately explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable” (Dembski, 1). Dembski also questions “finality” and asks if it is inherent in the things themselves. Dembski further strengthened his argument by contending that the purposiveness and seamless adaptation of the functioning of natural objects with that of the universe was in the domain of ‘form’ only and not with regard to ‘substance’. Dembski argued that a proof the latter would have necessitated clear and irrefutable evidence of the premise that the natural things in the world are also, in their ultimate material substance, products of the same supreme wisdom, to make them amenable of being regulated by the universal laws. He adds, “Intelligent design, as the science that studies signs of intelligence, is about arrangements of preexisting materials that point to a designing intelligence” (Dembski, 1). However, in absence of such proof or law, the logic of automatic equivalence between the governing laws of natural things and that of the absolute necessity, viz., God, breaks down irreversibly. The concept of the supreme wisdom as the repository of perfection being described by such superlative epithets as “very great”, “astounding” etc also suffers from indeterminacy. Since the magnitude of such perfection could not be comprehensively determined, barring such idealistic concepts of “allness”, the concept has been rendered tenuous and hollow, and unable to lend itself any cogency and firmness, for a more deterministic inquiry of the same.
Logic of evolution
Charles Darwin proposed the hypothesis of evolution that life may have originated in a small and warm water body, which provided an environment with a variety of ammonic and phosphoric salts, luminosity, warmth, electricity, etc., what ensued was a protein amalgam, which was chemically produced. This compound as suggested by him was likely to undergo intricate reactions. He further explained that under present circumstances, such substances would immediately be consumed or absorbed, but that was not the case then due to the lack of any living form. Darwin suggested that all living organisms had descended from a single or perhaps a few unique types. He proposed that organisms gradually start altering and diversifying and this was a very natural course. The species, which possessed trait variants, which were conducive in the surroundings it lived in, would produce, continue to exist in a more flourishing manner as compared to the species with inappropriate variants. Thus, these beneficial traits would accrue eventually by an anticipated practice of “natural selection.” The entire idea of Darwin is backed by scientific methods of DNA analysis. “DNA letters passed from generation to generation, scientists have clearly shown that such mutations do occur fairly regularly” (Kingsley, 3). This way the theory makes itself aligned with the modern development on the parameters of natural selection. Thus, this approach is much more evidence-based rather than philosophy like Dembski’s argument.
Argument
In a way, Intelligent Design is a modern form of Kant’s Cosmological argument where the name of the creator is left unuttered. Thus, the theory of Intelligent Design can well be enumerated as a part of theology, or even religion, but it can never be conceived as a science. Nevertheless, if indeed the theory is not religiously based, then why it indicates the existence of being that is undefined. True, that science too tries to explain the undefined but the fundamental question in science is predominantly ‘how’ or ‘why’ and definitely not ‘who’. It is quite perfect for Intelligent Design as a study of the natural world as long it is not targeted towards an undefined ‘who’. This ‘who’ factor is the biggest ‘black hole’ of the theory and there is no argument in the theory that defines the existence or non-existence of this ‘force’ or ‘being’. It is as if this undefined part is a constant in the theory making is a lesser science if at all anyone is interested in calling it a ‘science’. However, no matter how well argued these theories of William A. Dembski who is a firm believer of Intelligent Design is; the bottom line remains simple. There are no mathematical derivations involved in it or any scientific method of proof and evidence-based thesis. Science is heavily dependent on proof that is backed by mathematics or similar knowledge that could be termed as error-free. Intelligent Design lacks such hard evidence as proof. Thus, it remains a philosophy and not a science.
Works Cited
Dembski, William A. Intelligent design. Baylor University. 2004. designinference.com. Web.
Kingsley, David M. “Diversity Revealed: From Atoms to Traits”. Scientific American Magazine. 2008. Scientific American. Web.