By Mike Gene

Intelligent Design proponents refuse to publicly identify the designer. If you are familiar with the debate surrounding ID, then you have probably heard this claim. The claim is almost always made by critics of ID. But what is the relevance of the claim?

I suspect that most critics of ID are quite sincere and think this observation is important for two reasons. First, any sincere interest in ID would entail a further interest in the designer. Thus, why make the identity of the designer off-limits? Why be coy about speculating about the designer's identity when its perfectly natural to ask this follow-up question? Secondly, the major players in the ID movement all happen to be religious. Thus, it is obvious that they believe the designer is God. But given the socio-political climate, where the ID movement is trying to get ID incorporated into public schools, the silence is part of a political strategy itself. This, at least, is how many critics of ID think.

While the motives of the ID critics may be sincere, the question itself ends up poisoning the well. Let's use Michael Behe as an example (although we could just as easily use Bill Dembski).

Behe infers design as a function of irreducible complexity. Behe argues that an IC system could not have evolved. And this leaves us with design as the only plausible explanation for the origin of such systems.

Now, note carefully that no where in this argument is the identity of the designer involved. It is not a necessary, unstated assumption. And it is not part of any conclusion. For example, say the bacterial flagellum is IC. For the sake of argument, say this means it could not have evolved. Thus, someone infers design as the best explanation. Just how does one extract the identity of the designer from the design of the flagellum?

Let's go so far as to relax our demands for the specific identity of the designer and instead put all possible designers into two categories - natural and supernatural. Okay, you infer the bacterial flagellum is designed because it is IC. Now, using this conclusion, and the data used to conclude IC (i.e., biological data about the flagellum and its parts), can you tell us whether the designer was a supernatural intelligence or a natural intelligence? No.

Thus, it should be perfectly clear to any objective person that the identity of the designer is not indicated, in any way, through the IC-to-ID inference. To carry the IC-to-ID inference to the point where the designer's identity is indicated, one would have to carefully argue that the property of ICness is exclusive to a specific class of designers or any particular designer. In the past, I have asked dozens of ID critics to put themselves in Behe's shoes and imagine they have inferred that the bacterial flagellum was designed as a consequence of IC. Then, I asked them from there, to identify the designer. Every one has failed.

The bottom line is that an IC analysis fails to deliver the identity of the designer. Furthermore, assumptions about the designer are not needed to carry out an IC analysis. Thus, the reason Behe does not identify the designer is because his method does not provide it. Behe is being both intellectually responsible and logical. Ironically, when his critics insist that he identify the designer, they are baiting him to behave in an intellectually irresponsible and illogical manner.

But what of the fact that Behe is a Catholic? That Behe personally believes the designer is God is not relevant. He has the freedom to add this extra layer of personal interpretation to his conclusions. That is, just as someone like Ken Miller can see God behind natural selection, someone like Michael Behe can see God behind design. Miller uses his own theology to interpret natural selection. Behe uses his own theology to interpret his design inference. And while Behe makes it clear he thinks the designer is God, he does not argue that those who make his design inference are likewise obligate to conclude God is the designer.

Refusal to identify the designer from the design is simply good logic. It's the intellectually responsible move if one is inferring design on the basis of IC. That some might have exploited this point of logic for political purposes is not important except to those focused on politics.

And in comes our poisoned well. If a design proponent infers design, she will be asked to identify the designer. If she adheres to the logic of the design inference, she can't do this. This sets the stage for the critic's question. And if she also turns out to be religious, instead of recognizing the refusal to identify the designer as an adherence to rational thinking, it is interpreted in sinister terms. The design proponent becomes "religiously motivated." She is a closet religious apologist. A proselytizer. Someone fighting a cultures war. That's what her "refusal" really means in that poisoned well.

Suffice it to say, I have little patience with the "identify the designer" rhetoric. It's not just an example of sloppy thinking. It's a form of sloppy thinking that gunks up any sincere interest in design. It turns an attempt to adhere to logical, responsible thinking into a sinister motive. So perhaps, there is a better question to ask. Why do ID critics refuse to publicly acknowledge that it is illogical to identity the designer using the criteria of mainstream ID (IC and CSI)?