Detection of Design

Before I dive into teleology, let me blog briefly on the detection of design to expound on my last blog: The Case for Intelligent Design.

It is first important to know what design means, as well as a way for design to be detected. The term “design” means the “purposeful arrangement of parts.” Imagine you were at Grand Central Station in New York. You walked into the main hall and it is very busy. People are rushing to catch their train. Others are stopping to grab coffee.  Over in the corner is a man selling magazines and newspapers. You look down to check the time. You look up and you see a woman motionless, apparently frozen.  You scan the room and see more than a dozen more motionless. This goes on for over a minute. You stare in amazement by this.  Another minute goes by and they all go back to their activities. In an instant they are freed from their paralysis.  Then from the balcony above you hear clapping and a loud “Great job everyone!” You ask a woman who was frozen to explain what happened. “It was a flash mob! The man up there…it was his idea.” The event was designed. Many parts were put in place to give the appearance of a shocking event. Of course there are both simpler and more complex examples. That is where the problem lies: anything can look designed. So how can design be scientifically detected? Design becomes apparent when separate components are dependent on each other to accomplish a purpose beyond the individual components. Biochemist Michael Behe suggests, “The greater the specificity of the interacting components required to produce the function, the greater is our confidence in the conclusion of design.” To arrive at a decision of design you need “an identifiable function of the system.” That system must have “the greatest amount of the system’s internal complexity. We can then judge how well the parts fit the function.” Therefore there are four components to detecting design:

1. There must be a complex object.
2. The object must be filled with complex, internal components.
3. The complex object must have a specific function.
4. The internal parts should be working towards that function.

For example, a computer is made up of many parts which make it function as a computer.  If you remove the hard drive, memory stick, power supply or processor, it will no longer function as a computer. It would become a very large paper weight. However when it’s parts operate towards its intended function is readily detected. The same process to detect design can be used for natural elements such as the universe.

But even with this method for discovering design, many Naturalists still argue that there is no scientific evidence for intelligent design. Columnist Robert C. Cowin wrote that “Creationists want public school biology classes to include the possibility of -- and scientific evidence for --a creator as well. There is no such scientific evidence. The concept of a supernatural creator is inherently religious.”  There are two problems with his view.  First, proponents of ID are not trying to identify the designer. According to John Lennox, “The term intelligent design was originally used to separate the recognition of design from the identification of the designer.” Second, it does not matter where the theory comes from as long as there is proof for it. J.P. Moreland contends, “It makes no difference whether a scientific theory comes from a dream, the Bible, or bathroom graffiti. The issue is whether independent scientific reasons are given for it.” After all, even Albert Einstein thought science without religion was silly.

Up next: Teleology - A Case for Fine-Tuning