Intelligent Design

Arriving At Intelligence Through The Corridors Of Reason

Spread the love

Review Of Probability’s Nature And Nature’s Probability – Lite, by Donald Johnson
ISBN: 978-0-9823554-4-2

If Intelligent Design is to be escorted out of science debating halls because of its compatibility with a belief in a deity, undirected naturalism should likewise be excluded on the premise that it is the core tenet of nontheistic religions like Atheism. Such is the opening message of the `Lite’ version of a book whose title Probability’s Nature And Nature’s Probability is so captivatingly simple that one cannot help but take at least a cursory look through its pages. And the author Donald Johnson has an impressive list of scientific accolades to his credit brought about by a passion for (and not a disdain of) science- a PhD in chemistry from Michigan State University, ten years as a senior research scientist in the medical and scientific instrumentation field, a twenty year college-teaching career and a second PhD in Computer Science.

Johnson’s personal reflections reveal a lot about how he came to espouse the views of the Intelligent Design movement. Over the course of his career, Johnson grew increasingly skeptical over natural causation as applies to the origin of life. Science as we know it, he notes, should make testable predictions. While speculation does have a place in science, it needs to be presented as such and not dressed up and served up as a `platter of facts’ for consumption by a public unaccustomed to the nuances of scientific argumentation. Johnson brings to the fore the blatant misrepresentations of what is truly `probable’, `plausible’ and `feasible’ in the context of origins of life research as he takes the reader on a whirlwind tour of mathematical notation and probabilistic reasoning.

Theories that are at loggerheads with the singular origin of our universe can in most cases be soundly discredited on the grounds that they lack empirical evidence and testability. The oscillating (Big Bang/Big Crunch) model in particular is easily pushed aside given a notable absence of data in support of a universe that will reach the critical density needed to cause its collapse. For an infinite-existence model we are confronted with the question of how a system that has reached maximum entropy over infinite time could ever give rise to a non-maximum entropy cosmos. In the words of Johnson “an infinitely old universe would be energy dead with no capacity for work, since one result of the second law of thermodynamics is that perpetual motion machines are impossible (zero probability)”. Other attempts to eschew the extraordinary fine tuning of our universe, such as we see in the manifold iterations of String theory, posit the existence of multiple universes. The metaphysicality of such alternatives however, given that we cannot possibly hope to see beyond the horizon of our own cosmic abode, renders them unqualifiable as real science.

What are we to make of the abundance of life on our planet? As Johnson so clearly conveys, an acceptable definition of life naturally entails a consideration of observable phenomena such as metabolism, growth and reproduction. At the heart of life lies a myriad of proteins that perform critical functions all of which depend on the tight specification of highly-restricted amino acid sequences. Proteins in the ribosome are themselves translated by the very machinery of which they form a part. The DNA that supplies the instructions for their manufacture is a digital code of the highest order with alternative splicing and sequence overlap of the estimated 20-25,000 genes that exist in humans producing somewhere in the order of 100-200,000 distinct proteins.

Even one of the smallest organisms, Mycoplasma genitalium, sports 482 genes although estimates suggest that as few as 151 genes might be all that is needed to make the simplest life form. How might chemical evolution have taken the first baby steps on the road to what one might tentatively call a primitive cell? The reality as Johnson so emphatically hammers home is that science remains clueless over this singularly important question. Since proteins and nucleic acids have long been known to act as an integrated co-operative whole, models that assume a gradual evolutionary process are today considered woefully inadequate for explaining the origins of life. Truth be told, there exists a pervasive ‘science as we don’t know it’ element in everything from RNA world hypotheses to panspermia and the host of proposed undirected natural processes that invoke the role of minerals in early biocatalysis.

With matter and information representing two distinct “domains of existence”, biologists are at a loss to explain the origin of the digital code contained in genetic material. DNA carries a large degree of so-called traditional information which provides meaning for subsequent interpretation by the translation machinery. Trevors and Abel wrote how the codons of DNA represent “functional meaning only when the individual amino acids they prescribe are linked together in a certain order using a different language”. This has to be one of the outstanding revelations of the bioinformatics revolution. In fact, using his exhaustive knowledge of information science, Johnson demonstrates the extraordinary parallels between a computer program’s algorithmic language and the genetic information system contained within every living cell.

What is most impressive about Johnson’s text is the breadth and diversity of scientific sources that he draws from. Even those who are heavily committed to undirected naturalism display an apparently unavoidable tendency to use a language that connotes design. So it is that while Darwin’s heavyweights seem intent on embracing chance and natural selection as the only drivers of biological change, they are also perhaps unwittingly navigating towards intelligent design through their own corridors of reason.

Further Reading
Trevors, J.T.; Abel, D.L. Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life. Cell Biol. Internat. 2004, 28, 729-739.

9 Replies to “Arriving At Intelligence Through The Corridors Of Reason

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Here are a couple of short videos with Donald E. Johnson

    The Cell – A World Of Complexity Darwin Never Dreamed Of – Donald E. Johnson

    The Digital Code Of DNA – Solid Proof Of Intelligent Design – Dr. Donald E. Johnson

  2. 2

    What happened to the book, The Nature of Nature?

  3. 3

    Deyes succumbs to exactly the same logical error as Behe and many other.

    Their primary argument is essentially:

    1. Our researches indicate that life is enormously complex.
    2. We cannot comprehend or figure out the all the details of such complexity.
    3. Therefore there must be a “higher intelligence that DOES understand it.

    While 1. and 2. are indubitably very true, they in no way justify to the conclusion expressed in 3.

    The other argument is:

    1. Such complexity smacks of what our human minds call “design”
    2. We “design” things (the watch, to use Palin’s example) with the facility we rather arrogantly call “intelligence”
    3. Therefore complicated structures of nature (the eye,say) must be “designed” by something akin to this facility which we call “intelligence”

    1. Here I would agree that in the very limited sense of purpose or direction can the development of life can be attributed a property corresponding in some ways to “design”
    2. In this statement lies the anthropocentric into which proponents of ID as such people as Richard Dawkins both fall. The watch is as much a product of the observed general evolutionary processes as is the eye. In the limited sense of having direction we are also justified in saying they both have design. But this undoubted directionality of the life process does not require invoking a designer.
    3. We like to kid ourselves that we design things with our much-vaunted “intelligence”. We don’t, we are merely the vehicle for the continuation of the directed autonomous evolution of the life process.

    Such matters are discussed further within a very broad context in my recent book “Unusual Perspectives”, which is available in electronic format for free download from the eponymous website.

  4. 4
    Upright BiPed says:


    Well now, there’s a well-designed structure for an argument:

    Step 1: Define own terms to suit 2

    Step 2: Knock down 1

    Is this argument an intelligent one, or not? It could only be improved if it made a value judgement or two.


  5. 5
    Jim says:

    Peter Kinnon succumbs to exactly the same fallacy as Miller and other ID critics: the straw-man fallacy.

  6. 6
    Nakashima says:

    Mr Deyes,

    With this review, as with some of your others for UD, it is hard to tell where the position of the text ends and your additional comments begin. Perhaps you could be clearer in the future.

    With matter and information representing two distinct “domains of existence”, biologists are at a loss to explain the origin of the digital code contained in genetic material.

    Yes, they were at a loss in 1995 when Direct interaction between amino acids and nucleotides as a possible physicochemical basis for the origin of the genetic code was published. I think the use of the word ‘possible’ in that title is one that Dr Johnson would approve of.

  7. 7

    Peter G Kinnon,

    We like to kid ourselves that we design things with our much-vaunted “intelligence”. We don’t, we are merely the vehicle for the continuation of the directed autonomous evolution of the life process.

    Let me get this straight. You are saying that your statement is not designed and that you are kidding yourself, that the letters you assembled into english words to form this sentence convey no amount of intelligence whatsoever, that your sentence is just a by-product of evolution. That we are just having illusions. Perhaps you also kid yourself into thinking that “we are merely the vehicle for the continuation of the directed autonomous evolution of the life process.”

    While illusions are real, it takes intelligence to discern what is and what isn’t an illusion. Indeed, you claim to have figured out that intelligence is an illusion and that we are kidding ourselves, but you yourself are not fooled? Perhaps you are more intelligent than we are.

    If it isn’t self-refuting nonsense, it’s very close.

  8. 8
    CannuckianYankee says:

    Franck, re 7

    Very intelligently stated. Or was that just an illusion? 🙂

  9. 9

    CannuckianYankee, re 8

    It wasn’t me, it was the “autonomous evolution of the life process.”

Leave a Reply