Evidence for Intelligent Design: From the Perspective
of the ID Critic
By Mike Gene (
This web page explores the biotic world through the prism of teleology. However, I have yet to specifically outline the type of data I would consider as evidence for Intelligent Design (ID). Eventually, this will be rectified and I will share my thoughts on this issue. In the meantime, it might be helpful to explore the data that the critics of ID would count as evidence for ID.
Over the years I have participated in hundreds of debates related to ID on the ARN Forum. During this time, I have repeatedly asked skeptics of ID to outline the type of data that would cause them to suspect ID or the type of data that they would count as evidence for ID.
Below is a list of most of the responses I have been able to gather/find. Let us consider and score the responses. There are 19 replied from 14 different people. Most of those who responded were either scientists or people involved in science.
All of the various responses fall into one of four categories:
A = Evidence of the designer independent of
the design.
B = Something that
cannot be explained by evolution/natural selection.
C = Analogy with things known to be
designed.
D = Don’t know
Let’s consider each response and score it appropriately.
1. Data confirming the
"something" existed - like a signature in DNA "Made By
________" - would help. The "bioengineering" aliens or diety explaining their long absence by holding a press
conference on the White House steps would help. IOWs,
evidence other than "something" shoulda/woulda/coulda
because we have no evidence "something" did not.
I’d score the ‘Made by _____” as an example of B and
the press conference as an example of A.
2. I would suspect
intelligent design... in the presence of evidence which showed the appearance
and subsequent spread of a biological trait within a population - a biological
trait that was inimical to reproductive success - that failed to correlate to a
subsequent decline in that population. [snip] Next, to
more precisely address Mike Gene's question of why my example would lead me to suspect design; it is because it contains a logical contradiction - in short, it violates the known laws by which the
universe operates - it is only satisfiable via an
unknown law or conscious intervention. More importantly, for the suspicion of
design, is that it would require a law of a different order than known laws
governing population biology.
I’d score this as an extreme version of B.
3. Evidence of the designer. We know of one designer, man, and we have
evidence that he exists.
Clear statement of
A.
4. Evidence of objects or
events that we would normally assume were man-made except
that the circumstances imply that no man could have made them. Television
signals coming from outside the solar system are an example.
This is an example of C (analogy).
5. "Proof that
non-teleological processes couldn't
possibly produce life." However, I can't imagine how one could prove
this.
We can consider this a version of B.
6.
Another example of B.
7. Precambrian rabbits,
or anything that appears in prehistory well before its precursors could have been
available.
Another example of B.
8. External
positive evidence of a prehistoric intelligence with the potential of
intervening in biological history. The evidence would not have to be of the
intelligence acting; what such evidence would do is simply establish the
presence of the causal factor, which would finally put design on an even
footing with natural processes. (Positive evidence that the intelligent
designer actually intervened in biology, e.g. an alien videotape or whatever,
would prove the IDer's case).
An example of A.
9. Observational evidence that a mysterious
teleological force (e.g., Dembski's quantum
interventions) occasionally kicked in when necessary to get biological systems
over tough humps. E.g., this could be observed during attempted replications of
the evolution of the PCP degradation pathway in nondegraders.
This similarly would get ID in the door as a "present and accounted
for" possible explanatory force in evolutionary history.
This is an odd one. A mysterious
force that is detected to help evolution? I’d say this is just another
variant of B, where once again Darwinian evolution is supposed to fail at
explaining something.
10. Designed
"stuff" is always made with some sort of purpose that fulfills the
wishes of the designer. If I found that the teleos of
living things was something other than their own apparent self-propagation,
then I would suspect design.
I would score this as analogy. But since it also invokes
something other than a feature that benefits self-propagation, it also entails
something evolution cannot explain. Score B and C.
11. What counts as
evidence of ID? Some examples:
- All mutation rates are
zero.
- Identical DNA sequences
for same functional proteins in all organisms.
- No variation among
members of a species.
I’d score all three statements as a finding that
evolution cannot explain. That is, evolution requires variation, and requires
mutation to generate new variation. Without it, there is no evolution. I read
the “identical DNA sequences” as an indirect measure of no variation. I’d say
it’s all the same answer – B.
12. (Speaking of
something like a bird/mammal mosaic): The saddest thing is that these are
examples of design. Common descent among
the lifeforms that exist today would never create
these types of animals. This would be very good evidence for design if you
could find a half mammal half bird, since common descent predicts that these
lineages have been separate for up to 300 million years.
Clear example of B.
13. What kind of evidence
would indicate that ID might be true? Well, I would suggest some evidence
that's not adequately explained by evolution. This is what Behe has tried to produce - something that could not be
produced by variation and natural selection, but he's failed.
Even clearer
statement of B.
14. When we state that we need direct evidence of
ID, they (probably correctly) understand that we mean a direct manifestation
of a creator. They then believe we are setting an impossibly high hurdle
and a double standard.
[snip]
Therefore please understand that indeed "extraodinary
evidence" standards will and should apply to what is accepted in
scientific circles. How you live your life and what you let into your heart is
for only you to determine, however.
Clear statement of A.
15. I can't even imagine such evidence as
existing and being in any way testable.
An example of D
(“don’t know”).
16.
So what I would look for
as evidence of design is meaningful complexity within biological organisms
which is completely unrelated to biological function, so that we can safely conclude that it could not have evolved. My
example, which was derided as "trivial" in another thread, would be
the discovery of God's trademark in biological organisms, like
"Yahweh" written into the genetic code. My example may be trivial,
but it is the sort of thing, which if it were discovered, could only be explained by design and not evolution. Those who
don't like my example can perhaps come up with an example of their own of
meaningful biological complexity unrelated to biological function, which, if it
were discovered, would only be explainable by design.
Clearly another
example of B.
17.
Sorry - I forgot I didn't finish that thread. Certainly evidence
of a designer would constitute good objective evidence, but I certainly
belief that other categories of evidence exist.
For example (and presuming we weren't dealing with some existing 'design'
experiment we could watch...) the appearance, retention, and refinement of
some biological feature which was either uncorrelated to or useless in a given
environment but which did not appear to cause any detrimental effect to the
organism.
I'm not sure that's clear. Let me try again. Let's consider the example of a
'design' scenario we understand: breeders. Farmers breed for certain
characteristics (size, speed, color, milk-yield in cows, etc.) whose retention
(or enhancement) are NOT correlated with any
'environmental' feature except the whim of the farmer.
This would indicate to me that something was going on outside of simple chance.
An example of both A and B.
18. 1) proof of some type of creator, not statements of faith 2) some type of message with very specific details about the structure of the universe, quantum mechanics, biology encoded in DNA within the genomes, basically a message from the engineer(s).
I’d put these both in the A category – 1) is a proof
and 2) constitutes indirect evidence of the designer.
19. meeting
Dembski's criteria regarding probability would be
good evidence for design.
I’d score this as B, as many would interpret meeting these criteria as amounting to finding something that cannot be explained by natural law and chance (including Darwinian evolution).
Summary
Figure 1 demonstrates that by far the most common (12/21)type of data that critics of ID would consider as evidence of ID are biological features that could not be explained by Darwinian evolution.
Figure 1. Answers to the question, “What type
of data would you count as evidence for ID?” A = Evidence of the designer
independent of the design; B = Something that cannot
be explained by evolution/natural selection; C = Analogy with things known to
be designed; D = Don’t know
In fact, a common theme among these answers was some feature that would not serve the bearer of the feature and could thus not be maintained over time by natural selection. This demand assumes that ID and evolution are mutually exclusive phenomena, but as this web site demonstrates, this need not be the case. And taken at face value, this demand simply attempts to direct ID into the realm of proving the impossible and proving something could not have happened. It is unrealistic to demand something like this, especially when one is free to invoke hypothetical conditions/creatures that can exploit convenient coincidences that are likewise imagined to occur. Ironically, those who demand this type of evidence often complain when various ID proponents take such an anti-evolutionary position. In other words, an attempt to meet this criteria will be met by someone accusing the ID proponent as “anti-evolution” or “neo-creationist.” Also, we've all been told that evidence against evolution is not supposed to be evidence for ID. In fact, even if some ID proponent could probe that some biological feature could not possibly have evolved, the non-teleologist could invoke an "unknown law" at work rather than ID.
The second most common answer (6/21) would have us find independent evidence for the designer. Yet this is a truly useless criterion from an investigative perspective. How in the world would an investigator set out to gather such data?
Furthermore, if life itself was designed, there is no reason (none) to expect to find the designer. That is, the truth of ID at the OOL does not entail such a finding.
In the end, the type of data needed to convince the critic appear as Epistemological Evidence. Such evidence is discussed elsewhere [1]. Thus, while it is technically possible to convince a skeptic of ID, the type of data they need is largely useless to any investigation trying to uncover clues and data that would suggest design.