Intelligent debate
A review of Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design
by Thomas Woodward
Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 2006
reviewed by Lael Weinberger
Intelligent Design has been at centre stage in the press for some time now, particularly
in the United States; a shocking sign to some, a hopeful one to others. In 2003,
Thomas Woodward released a timely history of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement,
titled Doubts About Darwin.1
Woodward approached the subject with insights from his specialty field, rhetoric
of science.2 Doubts About
Darwin took the story of ID up through the 1990s, focusing primarily on
Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe. Now, Darwin Strikes Back picks up the
story where the other left off.
A significant difference in approach for Woodward’s new book is indicated
by the subtitle, Defending the Science of Intelligent Design. Woodward’s
first book was adapted from his doctoral dissertation, and so Woodward’s ID
sympathies were kept muted. Now, writing for the general public, Woodward clearly
adopts the role of a historian-participant in the controversy. The result is a work
which outlines the historical development of the ID controversy and analyzes the
arguments of both sides from an ID perspective.
Battle begins
Woodward reviews some of the early history of ID, covered in detail in Doubts About
Darwin. Two critiques of evolutionary theory, released in the 1980s, caught
the attention of many of the early ID proponents, including Phillip Johnson, who
published Darwin on Trial in 1991. This popular book started the debate
in academia, which then increased by orders of magnitude when Michael Behe published
Darwin’s Black Box in 1996. Behe’s book was followed by a new
string of symposiums at universities, and committed Darwinians realized that the
issue was not going away. Here, Woodward picks up where Doubts left off,
as the evolutionists began to fire back in book form in 1999: Kenneth Miller’s
Finding Darwin’s God, and Robert Pennock’s Tower of Babel.3 For the first time, evolutionists
tried to identify and answer all the major ID arguments (p. 44). In 2000, Niles
Eldredge revised an old book critiquing creationism, The Triumph of Evolution and
the Failure of Creationism, to cover ID,4
and Pennock produced another controversial work on ID in 2001. A compilation purportedly
giving both sides, it actually gave Darwinists two thirds of the space, gave evolutionists
the final word in 8 out of 9 cases and ‘became notorious’ for ‘use
of some published ID articles without asking permission of the author’ (p.
45).
Meanwhile, from ID came a flurry of activity: three books by William Dembski, published
in 1998–99,5 Jonathan
Wells’ Icons of Evolution in 20006
and a string of major conferences. Woodward notes that the Yale Design Conference
was symbolically important: the conference
‘ … was seen by many as another turning point for not only public exposure
but scholarly credibility of ID as a young but legitimate program in science …. Yet … to ID critics this gathering was viewed as yet another sign of a
steadily deteriorating situation’ (p. 49).
Evolutionary agitation reached a new high in 2004, as Darwinists spun four major
critiques of ID off the presses, designed as ‘bunker-buster’ weapons
against ID (pp. 53–61, 174). (Woodward employs a war metaphor throughout the
book, sure to irritate Darwinists who want to downplay the ID conflict.) A highly
emotional image, called in rhetoric a ‘fantasy theme’, appeared in these
books: ID as a rejection of science and the harbinger of a new ‘dark ages’
(never mind that this period was actually notable for innovations in art, architecture,
philosophy, and water and wind power). Meanwhile, 17 major books were released supporting
or favourable to ID in the five years from 2000 to 2005, and three documentaries
contributed greatly in bringing the controversy to the public (pp. 61–63).
Bickering over Behe
Above: trilobite fossils. Paleontology has been unearthing a dazzling array of Cambrian fossils for over a
century without unearthing the corresponding legion of ancestral forms Darwinists
would have predicted. Consequently, the Cambrian fossils have figured prominently
in the Intelligent Design movement’s critiques of Darwinism.
Michael Behe introduced the term ‘irreducible complexity’ for those
biological structures that require all their parts to be present in order to function.
Woodward notes that the term itself is brilliantly memorable yet sophisticated,
projecting just the right image. This quickly became a centrepiece in the ID repertoire,
and drew the attention of the first anti-ID books to roll off the presses. Woodward
suggests that the amount of ire that Behe drew is indicative of the power of this
concept as an argument for design.
Woodward surveys the Darwinist’s responses, which have variously criticized
Behe’s analogies, suggested evolutionary pathways to form the systems Behe
claimed were irreducibly complex, and even impugned Behe’s character as a
scientist. (In an unconvincing and abusive ad hominem
attack, they have suggested that Behe was ‘lazy’ for invoking a designer
instead of searching for a Darwinian solution to the origin of ‘irreducibly
complex’ systems.) Woodward surveys the responses of ID scholars on a range
of issues, from the mousetrap analogy to the origins of the blood-clotting cascade.
The Darwinian spokesmen (most notably Ken Miller) have a tendency to declare the
case closed and ID defeated at every turn, only to have responses and counterarguments
forthcoming from ID.
Embarrassed Darwinists
The next for consideration is Jonathan Wells and his Icons of Evolution.
A stinging critique of ten familiar textbook evidences for evolution, Wells’
book provoked shrill cries of dismay from Darwinists, including Jerry Coyne and
Eugenie Scott. Wells’ reply is highlighted as a rhetorically powerful rebuttal
in which he catches his critics in scientific carelessness and in the debate tactic
of ‘shifting the goalposts’. An example is the issue of embryonic homology—the
Darwinian claim that embryos in various vertebrates look alike at various stages
of development, and that this indicates common ancestry. Wells pointed out the extensive
dissimilarities between embryos, blowing the traditional textbook image out of the
water. Coyne argued that if only Wells understood their evolutionary history, then
he would see the differences as evidence for evolution. This is shifting the goalposts,
and as Wells remarked,
So let me get this straight. Some of the strongest evidence for Darwin’s theory
is that vertebrate embryos are most similar in their early stages—except that
they’re not. But if we just interpret the embryos’ dissimilarities in
the light of Darwin’s theory, they then have ‘evidential value’.
… Darwin’s theory wins no matter what the evidence shows.—Jonathan
Wells
‘So let me get this straight. Some of the strongest evidence for Darwin’s
theory is that vertebrate embryos are most similar in their early stages—except
that they’re not. But if we just interpret the embryos’ dissimilarities
in the light of Darwin’s theory, they then have “evidential value”.
… Darwin’s theory wins no matter what the evidence shows’ (quoted
p. 94).
Woodward reviews in detail the arguments of Wells, Stephen Meyers and others based
on the fossil record. The debate focuses on the Cambrian explosion and the lack
of evolutionary ancestors, and Woodward notes that this is just the very visible
tip of a very large iceberg of recalcitrant fossil issues for the evolutionists.
A delicious irony Woodward points out is that though the Darwinists have always
said that the fossil record problems would decrease as more fossils are uncovered,
the situation on the Cambrian is worse now that it was just a few years ago for
the evolutionists. Jun-Yuan Chen of the Nanking Institute of Geology began an excavation
of Cambrian deposits in southern China, which as they have progressed over twenty
years now, produced the ‘the greatest Cambrian fossil bonanza of all time’
(p. 107). The paucity of evolutionary ancestors for these new creatures is more
glaring than ever.
Life’s origin
With the evolution of all life from simpler life attacked, Woodward proceeds back
to the origin of life itself. The ID assault on this evolutionary key point has
been relentless, going back to a 1984 book, The Mystery of Life’s Origin,
which helped launch the ID movement, and continued unabated from there. In the past
15 years, the evolutionists have responded with a host of new theories of life’s
origin: RNA first, ‘clay-crystal’ life, or even extraterrestrial chemical
evolution. But each of these scenarios leaves unanswered questions, most significantly
the origin of the information content required for life, one of ID’s strongest
arguments (p. 121).
Woodward distinguishes three perspectives on origins-of-life (pp. 130–133):
First, the ‘deadlock dodgers’ suggest that the origin-of-life question
does not concern evolution by natural selection; this is usually viewed as a cheap
way out, and is by far a minority position. G.A. Kerkut included the origin of life
in his definition of the ‘general theory of evolution’, and Scientific
American included a detailed article on origin of life (aka chemical evolution)
in their September 1978 special edition on evolution. Following suit, most of today’s
public voices for evolution—ranging from standard biology textbooks to popular
authors like Richard Dawkins—freely include origin-of-life scenarios in their
evolutionary presentations.
Second, the ‘doggedly determined’ researchers committed to naturalism
are convinced that ‘a solution can ultimately be found,’ despite the
inability to figure out how at the moment. Finally, there are the ‘design
detectives’ who are convinced that the naturalistic paradigm is scientifically
incapable of handling the problem. What’s more, they are convinced that the
evidence points to a solution by Intelligent Design.
Detecting design
Photo: Pradipta Mitra, released under GFDL,
In November 2000, Yale Law School was the sight of the Yale Design Conference, which
Woodward points to as a symbolic milestone in history of the Intelligent Design
movement.
A favourite tool of these ‘design detectives’ has been William Dembski’s
mathematical ‘explanatory filter’, which separates events into the causal
categories of ‘law’, ‘chance’ and ‘design’.
Coupled with a concept Dembski and Stephen Meyers have developed, Complex Specified
Information (CSI), the ‘filter’ analysis of biological information has
been used as a powerful and rigorous argument for design, and has taken its place
alongside Behe’s ‘irreducible complexity’ as a centrepiece in
the ID arsenal.
Woodward analyzes several of the most common arguments posed against Dembski’s
mathematical filter. He does an excellent job of covering the difficult subject
matter in a condensed form. For example, Darwinists have charged that the filter
gives ‘false positives’, and is unreliable for detecting design. Woodward
lucidly explains the Dembski rebuttal to this accusation for a layman audience:
actual false positives are never shown. On the contrary, the filter may attribute
an event to chance which was actually the product of design, but this is a false
negative, something to be expected from the filter. Using the classic Dembski poker
example, it is improbable to receive three consecutive royal flushes in a game,
and this may be an instance of cheating (which would be ‘design’). But
this is still within the realm of events that the filter will attribute to chance.
Thus, the filter may miss a designed event, but the filter has never attributed
to design an event that was actually chance. So, Woodward concludes, the filter
is cleared from presenting false positives of design (pp. 146–151).7
Friends and foes
Recent developments in the ID community have broadened the scope of argument, and
brought new personalities into the debate. The argument for design has expanded
beyond the biological sciences to include the entire cosmos. The ‘fine tuning’
of the universe for life on earth was brought into the forefront especially since
the publication of The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay
Richards. Unexpected allies have also emerged, such as agnostic philosopher, mathematician,
and molecular biologist David Berlinski.
Woodward even includes the ‘atheologians’ as allies of sorts. The ‘atheologians’
are the outspoken atheist end of the debate—Richard Dawkins is the most familiar
member of this group.8 Woodward
suggests that the rabid anti-religion sentiments and argumentative theatrics of
many in this group are more likely to interest onlookers in ID than to convince
them of its errors.
Evil overlooked?
Woodward is right that the atheist contingent is usually so polemical that it is
difficult to take them seriously. But it is in this context that Woodward encounters
two major arguments: poor design and evil in the world (pp. 167–171). Unfortunately,
these are skimmed over much too quickly (which is not necessarily Woodward’s
fault, but does indicate that ID simply has not talked about this problem very much).
The identity and character of ID’s anonymous designer is, it appears to me,
essential to fill in the details of the ‘design paradigm’ to replace
Darwinism.
The basic ID response is that a less-than-optimal design (on a car for instance)
does not justify the inference that there was no designer.9 Woodward quotes Dembski, who notes that any expectation
that the designer would design optimally is a theological claim. True enough. But
the implication is that, because it is theological, it is more or less off the table—and
this is the weak point of ID. ID provides an explanatory framework: a designer takes
the place of blind, purely naturalistic forces. But that is as far as it can go,
for the ID strategy is to dethrone Darwinism and replace it with Design, and then
work out such issues as the identity and character of the designer later. But as
long as ID refuses to deal with this issue, it cannot fill in the details of its
explanatory framework without breaking from its ‘big tent’ approach.
The questions move quickly from origins science to theology: Did this designer insert
new information or create new life forms at various points along several billion
years of history, or in a brief time period? If the designer opted for the longer
route, why did he/she/it not correct harmful mutations at the same time? Is the
designer a good designer or a malevolent one?
The identity and character of ID’s anonymous designer is, it appears to me,
essential to fill in the details of the ‘design paradigm’ to replace
Darwinism. If this is a theological question, so be it. The reluctance of ID to
deal with the theology means that the science is constricted in its scope. And to
deal with theology means that ID will have to confront theodicy (the problem of
evil). Creationists have welcomed many of the insights which ID has brought to the
debate over evolution. But we do not join ID tactically, by adopting a ‘don’t
know’ approach to the identity of the designer. Instead, by holding to a historical
and theological account of origins revealed in Scripture, we have something that
ID lacks, a means to fill in the details of origins.10
ID in perspective
NASA/JPL-Caltech
Woodward notes that while the Intelligent Design movement began with a concentration
on biological issues, in recent years it has expanded in scope as leaders within
the movement have applied the design paradigm to astronomy.
Where is ID now and where is it heading? ID has been part of a vigorous debate for
the better part of two decades. It is not a fringe movement, or a minor academic
question, but a full-scale public debate in which both sides are actively engaged.
Woodward suggests that this is the ‘paradigm crisis’ for Darwinism.
The Darwinists cannot expect ID to go away. Compounding the crisis is the fact that
some of the criticisms raised by ID are being echoed now by leading thinkers in
the field of evolutionary development (‘evo devo’). Woodward predicts
that the hold of Darwinian orthodoxy will be broken in the next thirty years, and
two (or possibly more) competing paradigms will take their places as legitimate
frameworks for science—a ‘design’ framework, and a revised naturalistic
framework (perhaps arising from evo devo).
Conclusion
Darwin Strikes Back is a well-written defence of ID presented in the format
of history, precisely as its subtitle indicates. It does not contain new scientific
arguments, but this was not within its scope. By laying out the arguments of all
the key players, it should serve as an excellent introduction to the Intelligent
Design movement. Its historical presentation should be interesting to those already
familiar with the movement. My main disappointment was that, as a follow-up to Doubts
About Darwin, it did not have more history. For instance, the Dover, Pennsylvania
court case, which made international headlines in late 2005, is mentioned several
times merely in passing, not in historical context.11 But omissions such as this are where the trade-off
comes between making a history of a movement and making a defence of a movement.
Nevertheless, this combination of history and argument has a method of persuasion
that is unique in the ID literature. By presenting the arguments of others rather
than the author, the reader gets a better sense of the variety and vitality of the
arguments, especially since the group of scholars that comprise the ID movement
is so diverse. Despite what I perceive as theological problems and limitations of
ID, their work is an advance against Darwinism and naturalism that cannot be ignored.
This book is a good, and predictably optimistic, summary of the state of the movement.
Related articles
Further reading
Recommended Resources
References
- See review: Blievernicht, E., The rhetoric of design,
Journal of Creation 18(3):46–47, 2004.
Return to text.
- See also Larson, E.J., The art of debating Darwin: A review
of Doubts About Darwin by Thomas Woodward, Christianity Today
48:89–91, Sep. 2004. Return to text.
- See critiques: Woodmorappe, J. and Sarfati, J., Mutilating
Miller, Journal of Creation 15(3):29–35, 2001; and
Steel, A., The tower with many flaws, Journal of Creation 14(2):41–46,
2000. Return to text.
- See critique: Woodmorappe, J., Eviscerating Eldredge: A review
of The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism by Niles Eldredge,
Journal of Creation 15(2):13–16, 2001.
Return to text.
- See reviews by Truman, R., Divining design: A review
of The Design Inference: Eliminating chance through small probabilities, Journal
of Creation 13(2):34–39, 1999; Designer science:
A review of Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology,
Journal of Creation 14(1):28–34, 2000.
Return to text.
- See review, Truman, R., What biology textbooks never told
you about evolution, Journal of Creation 15(2):17–24,
2001. Return to text.
- E.g. one atheistic critic pointed to an almost perfect silica
sphere, which has low information (every point on the surface is the same distance
from the centre), but so would not fit the ‘design’ criterion. But it
is almost impossible to form this naturally, so the shape was carved by design.
But this critic is one who can’t tell a false positive from a false negative.
Return to text.
- See Bell, P, Atheist with a mission: review of
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, Journal of Creation 21(2):28–34,
2007. Return to text.
- There is also the approach of taking each objection individually
(such as, ‘the eye is suboptimally designed’) and answering it (‘in
light of x evidence, the eye is what you would expect a good designer to
produce for our needs’—e.g. Gurney, P.W.V., Is our
‘inverted’ retina really ‘bad design’? Journal of Creation
13(1):37–44, 1999). The defence of design in this kind of
argument may show either that the design is in fact optimal, or that it could have
been, but has suffered degeneration since it was created. Another point
is that an individual feature considered by itself may be not appear optimal,
but the organism or ecosystem as a whole is optimal (for example,
in isolation, thicker armour on a tank is stronger and hence more ‘optimal’;
but an optimal tank would not have ‘optimally’ thick armour because
the tank as a whole would be too heavy to move). This is an approach which
necessarily makes assumptions about the character of the designer (such as, ‘the
designer is going to design optimally,’ and, to account for genetic degeneration,
‘there was a fall from the good, original creation’).
Return to text.
- See also Wieland, C., CMI’s views on the Intelligent
Design Movement, 30 August 2002, 20 December
2006. Return to text.
- Considering the many critiques coming from the ID movement,
an historical analysis of the rhetoric surrounding the Dover trial and decision
would have been fascinating. Just to cite an example, an analysis released by the
Discovery Institute pointed out that the judge copied the ACLU position
precisely: ‘In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004-word
section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s
proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” submitted to Judge
Jones nearly a month before his ruling. Judge Jones even copied several clearly
erroneous factual claims made by the ACLU. The finding that most of Judge Jones’
analysis of intelligent design was apparently not the product of his own original
deliberative activity seriously undercuts the credibility of Judge Jones’
examination of the scientific validity of intelligent design.’ West, J.G.
and DeWolf, D.K., A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover
with Plaintiffs’ Proposed ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’,
Discovery Institute, 2006, 19 February 2007. Return to text.
| They say the Bible has been proven wrong by science. Whoever said that hasn’t been to creation.com. Please give so we can give … information that leads people to Christ our Savior.  | | |
|
