Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Quiz for Intelligent Design Critics

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In the near decade that I’ve been watching the Intelligent Design movement, one thing has consistently amazed me: the pathological inability of many ID critics to accurately represent what ID actually is, what claims and assumptions are made on the part of the most noteworthy ID proponents, and so on. Even ID critics who have been repeatedly informed about what ID is seem to have a knack for forgetting this in later exchanges. It’s frustrating – and this from a guy who’s not even a defender of ID as science.

But I’m interested in progress on this front, and I think I’ve come up with a good solution: let’s have an ID quiz. And let’s put this quiz to critics, in public, so at the very least we can see whether or not they’re even on the same page as the ID proponents they are criticizing.

I want to stress here: the goal of this quiz isn’t to score points, or force ID proponents to concede controversial things – asking ‘Is there a complete and satisfactory origin of life theory?’ is an important question, but it’s not what I’m after here. I’m talking about the bare and basic essentials of Intelligent Design arguments, as offered by Dembski, Behe and others.

To that end, here’s the quiz I’ve come up with, just by recalling off the top of my head the systematic mistakes I see made:

1. Is Intelligent Design compatible with the truth of evolution, with evolution defined (as per wikipedia) as change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations?

2. Is Intelligent Design compatible with common descent, with common descent defined as the claim that all living organisms share a common biological ancestor?

3. Does Intelligent Design, as offered by its most noteworthy proponents (Behe, Meyers, etc) propose to explain any purported incident of design by appeal to miracles or “supernatural” acts of any kind?

4. Does Intelligent Design, as offered by its most noteworthy proponents, argue that any given purported incident of design must have been performed by God, angels, or any “supernatural” being?

5. Is Intelligent Design, as offered by its most noteworthy proponents, compatible with atheism?

6. Does Intelligent Design, as offered by its most noteworthy proponents, rely on the bible, or any religious document? (as a source of evidence, etc)

7. Hypothetical scenario: a designer starts an evolutionary process. The designer arranges the environment and the organisms involved in the process in such a way so as to yield a particular, specified and intended result, with no intervention on the designer’s part aside from initially setting up the situation, organisms and environment. Is this an example of Intelligent Design in action, according to ID’s most noteworthy proponents?

8. Revisit 7. Stipulate that designer only used completely “natural” means in setting up the experiment and successfully predicting the result. Is this still an example of Intelligent Design, as offered by its most noteworthy proponents, in action?

9. An ID critic proposes that intelligent aliens, not God, may be responsible for a purported incident of Intelligent Design – for example, the origin of the bacterial flagellum. Has the ID critic proposed a scenario which, if true, would disprove Intelligent Design, as offered by its most noteworthy proponents?

10. A creationist argues that evolution must be false, because it isn’t mentioned in the Bible. Has the creationist made an Intelligent Design claim?

This list could be tweaked or expanded, I’m sure. But I have a suspicion here: I think many ID critics, at least critics of public note, would be unable to pass the quiz I just outlined. Not just unable, but unwilling – because to answer it would be to obliterate some common misrepresentations of Intelligent Design, and for whatever reason, those misrepresentations are very important to people. And pardon the repeated inclusion of ‘as offered by its most noteworthy proponents’ bit – I’m being stuffy about that because I don’t want to see someone exploit a loophole and run off on a tangent.

Regardless, I offer this quiz for ID regulars – critics and supporters alike. Feel free to take it in the comments if you’re interested! I can already name a few ID critics on UD I think would successfully pass the test, and maybe some ID proponents would actually fail it. Perhaps we’ll see.

Comments
Apologies I'm just getting to these piecemeal . . . "10. A creationist argues that evolution must be false, because it isn’t mentioned in the Bible. Has the creationist made an Intelligent Design claim?" What is an "Intelligent Design claim"? Are you asking whether the creationist has made a valid critique of intelligent design? Are you asking whether the creationist has said anything relevant to intelligent design? Or are you asking whether the creationist has used an intelligent design argument?Eric Anderson
January 31, 2014
January
01
Jan
31
31
2014
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
nullasalus: Understood, thanks. As you've described it, I would say that it is an example of intelligent design. Maybe #8 needs to be worded a bit differently, though, to make it clear that the designer is actually doing something -- i.e., reviewing, analyzing, making determinations about what will or won't happen, and then placing initial conditions such that X will result. In other words, it is a combination of great knowledge, plus the ability to set up the initial conditions of the experiment. The part that threw me was the phrase "only used completely 'natural' means in setting up the experiment . . ." What you described in comment #8, is more like "allowed only completely 'natural' processes to operate after setting up the experiment." I'm not sure how "natural means" could set up an experiment, so presumably the designer had to act to set up the experiment? Unless all you are driving at is the old red herring of "supernatural" action . . . ? Anyway, just a couple of thoughts on perhaps making #8 a bit clearer.Eric Anderson
January 31, 2014
January
01
Jan
31
31
2014
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
Good questions, but if I.D. is such a big tent, including theists and atheists, creationists and evolutionists, even front-loaded Darwinians, then why do some people including Shapiro have to explain to you guys why he does not call himself an "I.D.ist?" And if "I.D. is so broad as to include folks who can't agree whether the scientific evidence points in the direction of the cosmos being 6,000 or billions of years old, and who can't agree whether the scientific evidence points to organisms having popped into existence out of thin air in the past, or their genes were directly manipulated countless times over billions of years, or their genes evolved due to natural forces front-loaded since the Big Bang," then that's not exactly supporting "science" as a way of "knowing," it's more like a big happy grab bag called, "I.D." Either science has or science has not a preponderance of evidence that supports a slightly narrower field of options than the "Discovery Institute" wishes to keep open? Might as well call such a wide field "philosophy" rather than "science." In fact the Discovery Institute seems a lot like the Institute for Creation Research, in that I don't see scientists rushing to join it. It's the same old small cadre of faces, and the same in-house funded journal. Meanwhile, in the world of science at large, we have new fields opening up all the time, including new sub-fields in complexity theory and information theory. I.D.ists don't seem to realize that science investigates connections, without ceasing just because someone says "we have reached a point of so-called "irreducibility." Science keeps probing for connections in time, space, genetics, etc. Another thing I.D.ists seem prone to doing is assuming that the mere mention of words like "design," "intelligence," "complexity" and "information" are proof of something in and of themselves, as if such words, concepts and mathematical theories were superimposed on top of reality instead of being words and mathematical models that humans invent to try and model how the cosmos is connected and interacts with other parts of the cosmos. The point that I.D.ists seem to forget is that it is doubtful to argue that words are equal to things, maps are equal to the territory, and that models equal reality. "What reality does" is what is being modeled, not the other way round. (Unless one is a mathematical Platonist. But that is more a philosophical question than a scientific one.)EdwardTBabinski
January 31, 2014
January
01
Jan
31
31
2014
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Hi Null, In #7 and #8 you start your description with "a designer starts an evolutionary process" ...which requires the very thing most in question -> the rise of an functional translation system (i.e. the origin of the first instance of specification on earth).Upright BiPed
January 31, 2014
January
01
Jan
31
31
2014
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Eric,
Could you maybe rephrase it or give me an example of a scenario (even a thought experiment would be helpful) that falls in this category?
Sure thing. Take a hypothetical scientist. Very intelligent, and he has a lot of technology at his disposal. He places organism A into environment 1. He's trying to 'produce' organism B. He knows that by placing A in 1, over time he's going to get organism B. Say he knows with certainty when and where B will even show up - it will take so many generations, these interactions will take place, these mutations will take place, and so on. He's not omniscient, he's just very smart and knows what's going to transpire in the environment in all relevant ways. He can do this without interacting with either 1 (the environment) or A (the organism) past the initial introduction of A into 1. As he predicted and expected, the combination of A plus 1 eventually produces B. It's just artificial breeding on another scale, really. Here's where I think people may be thrown: what's important here isn't whether or not ID proponents would be able to detect the hypothetical scientist's design. We're not looking at this from the perspective of uninformed outsiders. We're looking at this from the perspective of informed insiders - we know that this hypothetical scientist (for the purposes of the example) does exist, we know his intentions, we know he knows all these things about A and 1 and the results, we know what he's trying to do with A and 1, we know that he succeeds. So is B an instance of intelligent design?nullasalus
January 31, 2014
January
01
Jan
31
31
2014
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
Thanks, nullasalus. Pretty good list. I'm not clear, however, on #8.
8. Revisit 7. Stipulate that designer only used completely “natural” means in setting up the experiment and successfully predicting the result. Is this still an example of Intelligent Design, as offered by its most noteworthy proponents, in action?
Could you maybe rephrase it or give me an example of a scenario (even a thought experiment would be helpful) that falls in this category? Thanks,Eric Anderson
January 31, 2014
January
01
Jan
31
31
2014
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
To propose a biological entity of some kind only moves the question back a level. I will not accept an infinite regression either.
Alright, but at that point you're no longer engaged in ID reasoning. You're off into some other field - philosophy, metaphysics, etc. Which is great, and I encourage people to deal with those questions. They're just not ID questions. James McGrath is actually someone I have in mind here for hopefully taking this quiz sometime.nullasalus
January 31, 2014
January
01
Jan
31
31
2014
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
Questions 4 and 5 are not easy to answer for me. If there is design in nature, as I believe there is, there must be a designer. Regarding Q4, it is true that ID propenents do not propose who the designer is, but as I said there must be a designer. To propose a biological entity of some kind only moves the question back a level. I will not accept an infinite regression either. A previous post linked to a comment by Dr. James F. McGrath, who said:
Can God make a universe capable of self-organization? If so, then there is no way to make the case that complexity reflects direct design by a tinkering God, as opposed to natural processes in a universe made by an extremely clever God. And if not, why do you posit a god that is so limited?
I have some problems with that observation. What does Dr. McGrath mean by natural processes? Processes set up to somehow create life are not "natural", since natural processes as the ID folks consider them are not capable of creating living organisms. Is Dr. McGrath proposing not only am extremely clever god, but a trickster god? I suppose a God who creates the world but chooses to hide from it would be compatible with atheism.NeilBJ
January 31, 2014
January
01
Jan
31
31
2014
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
Joe, Yes, it's front-loading. I'll try to make that more clear in a revision. And thanks. We'll see what happens. I have a theory about these questions, especially if they get tightened up a bit more: I think many ID critics will be completely unable to answer them correctly. Not out of ignorance - I could supply links to quotes from Behe, Dembski, Meyer, etc, to help them get all the right answers. I really think that many of them would rather choke than present ID as ID proponents themselves see and offer it, because to do so would be to undercut their most common criticisms and complicate their goals. Maybe I'll be proven wrong. That's part of the fun.nullasalus
January 31, 2014
January
01
Jan
31
31
2014
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
nullasalus, I see an engineer in 7 & 8. 7- just requires more engineering involvement whereas 8 is like Star Trek's "Genesis Project" in "The Wrath of Khan". And I said "if it is indishtiguishable from nature, operating freely, then you cannot infer design." You didn't say nor imply such a thing. I was/ am unclear what 8 entails. Is it front-loading, right from the start? Good luck with your emails. Once you get it refined let us know. I want to take it to the local schools and talk with the science teachers. I know a few at the high school and college levels.Joe
January 31, 2014
January
01
Jan
31
31
2014
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
Joe, Actually, once I get some feedback from some UD regulars, I may actually start sending this quiz around to ID critics by email. Regarding 8: interesting, I'll have to think about that. Either way I didn't mean to say 'indistinguishable from nature, operating freely'. In that case we know of the hypothetical designer. It's just 7 with an engineer specifically cited instead of a 'God' or the like.nullasalus
January 31, 2014
January
01
Jan
31
31
2014
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
Nice quiz, small problem-> you may have to make the rounds on anti-ID sites to observe any responses. Not too many left hanging here- My answers: Y,Y,N,N,Y,N,Y,X,N,N X- Everything is completely front loaded, right from the start? I would say if it is indishtiguishable from nature, operating freely, then you cannot infer design. I will stick with that.Joe
January 31, 2014
January
01
Jan
31
31
2014
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
1 5 6 7

Leave a Reply