In this blog post, we will examine the essence of science through an observational lens and deeply explore the relationship between intelligent design and evolution—a relationship difficult to define solely by the criteria of verification and falsification.
Historically, certain books have profoundly shaken human thought. One such book is Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. This book contained content that was utterly revolutionary at the time. Back then, people regarded the contents of the Bible as absolute truth, firmly believing that God created humans. However, starting with The Origin of Species, the hypothesis that humans evolved from apes was proposed. This hypothesis strongly persuaded nearly everyone at the time, shaking the existing worldview to its core.
Now, another book is poised to shake the world once more. That book is William Dembski’s *Intelligent Design*. It points out the limitations of evolutionary theory, offering both a complement and a new hypothesis. Of course, some strongly argue that this hypothesis cannot be considered science due to a lack of proper evidence and supporting cases. However, this perspective also stems from viewing science through an overly narrow lens. Now, I will briefly introduce intelligent design and explore how the perspective of those who consider it unscientific might change.
The main content of intelligent design can be broadly divided into two parts. One is pointing out the limitations of evolutionary theory, and the other is presenting the concept of ‘irreducible complexity’ to explain a new hypothesis that overcomes the limitations of evolutionary theory. First, let’s examine the limitations of evolutionary theory. Evolution is explained through mutation and natural selection. It posits that mutations occur within a specific organism over generations, species suited to the natural environment of that era survive, and this process repeats, leading to evolution. This explanation appears seamless, and no hypothesis seems as compelling as evolutionary theory when it comes to microevolution—the phenomenon of a species undergoing minor changes.
However, there is a clear deficiency regarding macroevolution—the complete transformation of a species. The most significant flaw is that, since evolutionary theory emerged relatively recently, there is no definitive data directly proving macroevolution. The claim that we must declare evolutionary theory, with these shortcomings, as the absolute truth and exclude other hypotheses is very hasty and lacks persuasiveness.
Intelligent design points out these limitations of evolutionary theory and, through the concept of ‘irreducible complexity’, suggests the possibility that living organisms were designed by some intelligent being. Here, irreducible complexity means that an organ responsible for a specific function in a living organism cannot perform that function if even one part is missing. The book uses a mousetrap as an easy example: if any part of the mousetrap is missing, the trap loses its function. Similarly, an organ in a living organism cannot perform its function if even one component is absent. Therefore, the claim is made that living organisms were designed by an intelligent being, not the result of evolution.
Some people who encounter this concept of intelligent design express the view that it lacks sufficient evidence and examples to refute the well-established theory of evolution, making it difficult to consider it scientific. However, this judgment not only misunderstands the original intent of intelligent design but also results from interpreting science within an overly restricted category.
First, intelligent design is not a hypothesis refuting evolution itself. It is a hypothesis proposing another possibility in the realm of macroevolution, which is difficult to explain through evolution. That is, it did not emerge because evolution is entirely wrong, but because evolution’s explanation of macroevolution is insufficient, appearing as an attempt to supplement it.
Furthermore, there is the claim that intelligent design, unlike evolution, cannot be science due to a lack of evidence. This is based on the logic that science must possess verifiability and falsifiability. Here, verificationism is the standard requiring the presentation of verifiable experimental methods, while falsificationism is the standard demanding that falsified scientific hypotheses be replaced by superior ones.
However, according to these standards, evolutionary theory from the perspective of macroevolution is similarly pushed outside the realm of science, just like intelligent design. Most evidence for evolution presented thus far pertains to microevolution. For macroevolutionary theory to be verifiable, it requires an extremely long period of time for species differentiation to actually occur. Similarly, a long period is also required for falsification. In other words, from the macroevolutionary perspective, evolutionary theory also finds itself in an ambiguous state, struggling to fully satisfy the criteria of verificationism and falsificationism.
Judged solely by current scientific standards, both intelligent design and evolutionary theory appear difficult to recognize as science. This is because modern science has been defined by a framework centered on verificationism and falsificationism, determining which hypotheses qualify as science. However, in the past, science shared unclear boundaries with disciplines like mathematics and philosophy, and the current definition has only been established for about 200 to 300 years.
In other words, the definition of science can change with the times, and as disciplines advance, their definitions must also evolve. This was true in the past and must remain true in the future. Therefore, I argue that the definition of science should expand beyond its current hypothesis-centric focus to encompass not only evolutionary theory but also intelligent design within the realm of science.
Science is not a discipline that must satisfy specific conditions; it is the discipline of ‘observing’ natural phenomena. It is a discipline that begins with observation and ends with observation. A prime example demonstrating this is the scientist Tycho Brahe, who devoted his entire life to observing the stars. His observational records made a decisive contribution to Kepler’s laws, which in turn became the foundation of Newtonian mechanics. Had Tycho Brahe not existed, neither Kepler nor Newton might have existed. Although his hypotheses were ultimately flawed because they were based on the geocentric model, his observations are still regarded as a great scientific achievement of humanity.
According to this hypothesis-centered definition of science, even Tycho Brahe might be difficult to classify as a scientist. However, under an observation-centered definition of science, he is clearly recognized as a great scientist.
Let’s revisit the essence of science through the story of Mpemba. A Tanzanian boy named Mpemba observed while doing a school assignment that hot water freezes faster than cold water. His teacher dismissed this as an illusion, ignoring Mpemba’s observation. Later, however, physicist Osborne proved Mpemba’s observation correct through experiments.
In this case, there are two scientists: Mpemba, who first observed the phenomenon of hot water freezing faster, and Osborne, who experimentally confirmed and documented that observation. Thus, science begins the moment observation occurs and ends with observation. Even if a hypothesis emerging after observation is dismissed as absurd by others, or even if it cannot yet be verified, if it is based on observation, it is still science. Science is not a hypothesis-centered discipline but a discipline of observation.
Therefore, the criticism that intelligent design is not science due to a lack of examples and evidence is not valid. Intelligent design, like evolutionary theory, observed the diverse species existing on Earth and formulated hypotheses based on those observations; thus, it can be considered scientific. If we exclude both evolutionary theory and intelligent design from the category of science because macroevolution is experimentally unverifiable, descendants living in an era when macroevolution is actually verified might deem both hypotheses absurd. However, in our current timeframe, both hypotheses are in the process of observing diverse organisms and forming hypotheses based on these observations; thus, they can fully exist within the category of science.
Thus far, we have introduced the content of intelligent design, examined representative misunderstandings about it, and demonstrated that intelligent design is not a discipline refuting evolutionary theory. According to the definition of science centered on observation, both evolutionary theory and intelligent design can be science. Consequently, we find ourselves supporting William Dembski’s position, which anticipates intelligent design being recognized as a branch of science.
However, while supporting this position, I wish to add one request. For intelligent design to become more persuasive, it must boldly remove the religious overtones pervasive throughout the book and develop its arguments solely around scientific logic and mathematical evidence. While the current book occasionally appears logically weak in parts, if it were refined with greater precision, it has ample potential to become another work capable of shaking the very foundations of human understanding.
