I’m taking a brief interlude from my series on Science and Christian Education to talk about Intelligent Design.  Before I became comfortable studying biology, I would read anything and everything I could get my hands on that had to do with physics.  One of my favorite things was to read ”thought” experiments designed to help one ponder the strange and counter-intuitive world of modern physics (e.g. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics).  A thought experiment is an experiement that can’t actually be performed but can still tell you something about how the world works (like standing the event horizon of a black hole or riding a photon across the cosmos and watching all of eternity pass by in an instant).  So here is an Intelligent Design thought experiment based on Paley’s famous timepiece.   The purpose of this thought experiment is to explore the limits of our epistemology.

Let us suppose that we are walking through the woods.  We are soaking in the wonders of creation and marveling at all that God hath made.  Suddenly, we stumble upon a pocket-watch in perfect working order.  Like those other things around us, this carefully crafted machine also appears to have been designed and assembled to accomplish a specified purpose — to tell time.  To use the language of ID: it is a complex collection of related parts intentionally assembled to perform a pre-determined task.  It is the quintessential example of specified complexity.

Now let us ask one my favorite questions: What do we know and how do we know it?  In other words, what can we learn via a scientific analysis or a forensic investigation, and what can we deduce purely from reason, logic and experience?  This is a very important question, but one that ID supporters rarely ask themselves. 

1.) We know that the machine is a pocket-watch.  This point is not even debatable.  It is a fact.  But how do we know this?  Was the conclusion reached through careful scientific analysis?  Or did we simply cross check the visual data with our entire mental database of known objects until a match was found?  In other words, if we had never seen nor heard of a pocket-watch, could we have possibly come to that conclusion via scientific analysis?  Probably not, unless the item had “this is a pocket-watch” engraved on the back. 

2.) We know that the pocket watch has a purpose (to tell time).  Again, this is a fact.  But how do we know this to be true?  Don’t misunderstand: a forensic study of the object would absolutely reveal that the watch can be used to tell time.  But how could a scientific analysis reveal whether or not this was the true intent of the designer?  Is there a laboratory test in which something changes from blue to red if our “designers intent” hypothesis is confirmed?  No!  The item might also perform exceptionally well as a paperweight.  How do we know that a paperweight was not the deisgner’s intent?  Just because an object performs a certain function does not mean it was specifically designed for that task.  For instance, the vibrations of a molecule at a certain temperature can keep time more accurately than a mechanical pocket-watch.  Does that mean that molecules were designed and assembled specifically for that purpose?  Maybe.  But there is way to test this hypothesis.  How do we know that the designer had in mind?  Now, in the case of the pocket-watch, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that telling time is the most efficient use of the existing complexity.  What fool can’t plainly see this?  A pocket-watch makes an entirely inefficient paperweight.  But my point is this: there is no scientific experiment that can distinguish whether a percieved intent was intentional or unintentional!  Why?  Because intent and purpose are immaterial concepts that lie beyond the empirical reach of the scientific method.  So, while a careful qualitative study of the object does properly lead us to the correct conclusion, it is not a scientifically testable claim that can be measured or quantified - no matter how true or reasonable it might be.

3.) We know that the pocket-watch was designed by an intelligent agent for its intended purpose.  No disagreements here.  But again, how did we reach this conclusion?  On the surface it seems entirely reasonable, but just because something is complex and happens to be put together in such a way that makes it efficient and effective does not necessarily mean that a conscious intelligence was involved.  Case in point: a hurricane is a very complex and efficient weapon of mass destruction.  There is nothing mankind can put together in less than a week that is capable of storing and releasing enough energy to completely level hundreds of miles of coastline in a few short hours.  Nothing.  But despite the incredibly complex mechanical and thermodynamic structure of the system, it is merely the consequence of a few very simple laws of nature acting on a complex set of variables that will occasionally all fall within the narrow range required to “self-organize” and “self-assemble” into a very efficient and effective machine.  A finely tuned machine of air and moisture that appears to have no other purpose than to redistribute enormous quantities of energy from the ocean to the coast. 

Now this is awkward.  If hurricanes appear to have all the specified complexity of a pocket-watch, why are they not also evidence of intelligent design?  The answer, from within a Christian worldview, is this: THEY ARE!  If God has indeed designed and built the entire cosmos according to His sovereign decree, then anything that is a consequence of the created order is also a consequence of His design.  This might lead to uncomfortable questions of theodicity (the goodness of God)  since hurricanes are sometimes referred to as a natural evil, but the conclusion is inescapable.  Now what does this all mean for the science of meteorology?  Absolutely nothing!  Again, science doesn’t concern itself with design, intent or purpose - one way or the other.  These are immaterial motives that conscious beings created in the image of God attach to things.  They are value judgements and are not therefore arrived at through empirical analysis.  Science only concerns itself with how things are ordered, not who ordered them, why they were ordered, or for what purpose they were ordered.  No matter important or true these teleological questions are to us, ultimately they are immaterial. 

Are there any cries from conservative Christians to stop teaching that the weather is merely the consequence of natural forces, and start teaching intelligent meteorology?  Do we need to insist that God is the intelligence behind the complexities of earth’s atmosphere, and reject naturalistic theories of temperature, pressure, and humidity?  What would happen to our already limited ability to predict the occurrence of tornadoes and hurricanes if we replaced meteorological science with intelligent meteorology?  How many lives would be unnecessarily lost by throwing in the meteorological towel and giving up on our ability to figure out nature’s complexities?  How would that profit us?  How does introducing intellgent design into the biological sciences profit us?

4.) We know that the pocket-watch was built and assembled in accordance with the design.  Now we are starting to employ the tools of science.  In fact, if we had a copy of the engineering drawings from the manufacturer, a careful analysis might confirm that the item was indeed built to spec.  And science can even shed light on the manufacturing processes.  Tool marks might indicate whether a metal part was cast, forged or machined.  Metallurgical analysis might indicate what materials and process were used.  The lubricants might also have certain chamical signatures that are traceable and provide evidence of how or when the watch was assembled.  By comparing our watch with other contemporary time pieces, we might see commonality of parts or design principles that group similar pieces together according to how or where they are made.  By comparing our watch with older time pieces, we might see how analogous parts change through time, that they become more efficiently designed as technology advances, and are sometimes adapted to perform other functions as more advanced features are added to the same basic plan.  We might even learn something about the evolution of pocket watch technology.  Oops - I said a bad word!  Forgive me. 

Does any of this sound familiar?  This is what science does.  This is all science does.  And this is what science also does with those things found in the created order; whether they be minerals, vegetables, or animals.  Questions about design or ultimate purpose, no matter how important, are simply beyond the epistemological limits of scientific inquiry.  There is a place for objective material investigations into how the universe is put together, how it works, and how it changes over time, and there is a place for metaphysical and philosophical speculation (hopefully informed by biblical exegesis) on the meaning and purpose of every created thing.  The challenge for Christians is to recognize what those proper places are for each of these activities, and to not inadvertently allow the role of science to extend beyond its naturalistic limitations.  Keep science in its naturalistic box where it is no threat to our faith!

By insisting that telelogical questions of purpose and design be treated as science, we are unintentionally inviting the scientific community to take a method of inquiry that is completely blind to spiritual realities, and use it to answer some of life’s most important metaphysical questions.  And when the answers given to us fall short of our spiritual expectations, as they inevitably will, we complain about unfair secular bias!  Sometimes we are our own worst enemy.  Brothers and Sisters in the Lord, do not be misled by the Intelligent Design movement!

-GJG

This entry was posted on Friday, May 2nd, 2008 at 11:49 am and is filed under Random Things. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.