This blog post discusses the scientific viability of intelligent design theory by comparing how it explains the origin of life and contrasting it with evolutionary theory.
In his book Intelligent Design, William A. Dembski proposed the theory of intelligent design, which posits that an intelligent being designed life with intent. This stands in opposition to the established theory of evolution, which holds that life arose through chance and natural selection. Dembski argues, through the concepts of “irreducible complexity” and “specified complexity,” that at least some aspects of life were intelligently designed. This article examines the concepts of irreducible complexity and specified complexity. It argues that if these concepts are found in living organisms, it is natural to conclude that life was intelligently designed. Furthermore, it discusses the potential benefits to scientific progress of recognizing intelligent design theory as a science.
First, let us examine irreducible complexity. Among the organs of living organisms, there are structures that cannot function if even a single element is missing; these are organs that could not have arisen through gradual evolution. Dembski cites the mousetrap as an example. A mousetrap consists of elements such as the support, hammer, spring, latch, and locking bar; if any one of these is missing, the mousetrap cannot function. Therefore, a mousetrap cannot gradually form through incremental evolution; all components must be present simultaneously for it to function fully. Dembski argues that individuals possessing an incomplete mousetrap would be eliminated by natural selection as a consequence of wasted resources, making such structures unlikely to arise by chance. Such complex and systematic structures, which cannot be explained by gradual evolution, are termed “irreducible complexity.” Intelligent design proponents argue that because the probability of their emergence through gradual evolution is extremely low, it is reasonable to conclude that an intelligent designer exists.
Next, let us examine specified complexity. To understand this, we must first grasp the concepts of ‘specificity’ and “complexity.” Specificity refers to a form that possesses an appropriate pattern and can be expressed with a short description, while complexity refers to a structure that is unlikely to arise by chance. “Specified complexity” is a form possessing both specificity and complexity; Dembski calls this “complex specified information.” He used information theory to show that complex specified information cannot be explained by mutation and natural selection alone.
For example, suppose someone claims a monkey typing on a keyboard produced a sentence. If that sentence were “We” or a random string like “u fhvsoadlhds fio zihsdflaf ahdfkasddfkjd;sljasdfdvkl,” the claim would have some credibility. The former has specificity but lacks complexity, while the latter has complexity but lacks specificity. Conversely, if the sentence were something like “We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor,” it would be difficult to believe a monkey typed it by chance. This is because it possesses both specificity and complexity.
Dembski views natural selection as a function mapping elements that successfully reproduce in the domain to the codomain. According to information theory, when a function maps information from the domain to the codomain, the amount of information is preserved or reduced. Therefore, assuming complex specified information exists in the codomain, this cannot be explained solely by the function of natural selection. Attempts to trace the function of natural selection backward to explain the origin of complex, specified information in the codomain are likely to fail due to insufficient information.
While mutation can be seen as adding new elements to the domain, complex, specified information cannot be generated by chance mutation alone. Because it possesses complexity, it is difficult to generate with a single mutation; because it possesses specificity, it cannot be explained by multiple mutations either. Therefore, if complex, specified information exists in the codomain, it must have either existed in the domain from the beginning or been added later through the design of an intelligent being. Consequently, if forms possessing complex, specified information—that is, specified complexity—are found in nature, it is reasonable to view this as the result of intelligent design.
My argument is that intelligent design theory can explain life on Earth today better than evolutionary theory and can even contribute to the advancement of science. Life on Earth possesses organs and forms that evolutionary theory struggles to explain using concepts like irreducible complexity or specified complexity. Instances like bacterial flagella or the blood coagulation cascade, which possess complexities difficult to explain through evolution, actually exist. Conversely, opponents of intelligent design theory argue that it is merely a collection of arguments refuting evolution and that attributing the cause of phenomena to an intelligent being hinders scientific inquiry.
So, does evolutionary theory contribute to scientific progress? While evolutionary theory has indeed contributed to scientific advancement, it sometimes provides only convenient explanations for subjects we cannot fully account for. Intelligent design theory can complement these limitations and help find better answers where evolutionary theory falls short. A prime example is the concept of “junk DNA.” According to evolutionary theory, life has evolved through random mutations and natural selection without any specific purpose or direction. From this perspective, scientists regarded DNA that appeared to lack function as a byproduct of evolution, labeling it “junk DNA.” However, recent research has revealed that these DNA segments do possess functions. If viewed through the lens of intelligent design theory, the functions of this DNA would likely have been actively explored from the outset, and its functions would probably have been uncovered much earlier.
Embracing the paradigm that life was designed does not mark the end of life research; rather, it opens opportunities to pose new questions. For example, it allows us to explore questions previously unaskable: Who designed life? How was it designed? What was the purpose of the design? This operates similarly in archaeology. Archaeologists study artifacts designed by someone, tracing their origins; the fact of design does not hinder their research.
Thus, intelligent design theory does not impede scientific progress, nor is it merely a collection of arguments against evolution. Under the current paradigm of evolutionary theory, normal science faces anomalous phenomena like irreducible complexity or specified complexity—typical signs that a paradigm is reaching its limits. Intelligent design theory offers a new paradigm capable of explaining these anomalies, complementing the limitations of evolutionary theory while providing fresh perspectives and questions about living organisms. The time has come to explore living organisms from a fresh perspective, free from the fixed notions of evolutionary theory and with an open mind.
