At its core ID affirms the truth of two statements and then makes a logical deduction:
Statement 1. Designers often leave behind objectively discernible indicia of design in the things they design.
Statement 2. Some aspects of living things exhibit these objectively discernible indicia of design.
Logical conclusion. Therefore, the best explanation for the existence of the aspects of living things that exhibit these objectively discernible indicia of design is that they were in fact designed.
In a comment to a prior post lastyearon says the ID project is “meaningless.” That is a powerful charge to make; therefore it is incumbent upon lastyearon to prove his case. That, in turn, is a very tall order, because statement 1 is obviously true, and everyone agrees that statement 2 at least appears to be true. Finally, the conclusion is a perfectly valid logical inference following from the truth of statements 1 and 2. Let us examine these claims.
Everyone agrees that statement 1 is true. Entire scientific disciplines (archeology, forensics, cryptology) rest on that being the case. The truth of the proposition is practically self-evident. What are these indicia of design? Certainly two such indicia are specified complex information and irreducible complexity.
As for statement 2, even atheistic naturalists such as Dawkins, Crick, Dennett, Huxley, and Simpson admit that living things appear to have been designed for a purpose:
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York; Norton, 1986), 1.
“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery (1988; reprint, London: Penguin: 1990), 138-139.
“At first sight the biological sector seems full of purpose. Organisms are built as if purposefully designed, and work as if in purposeful pursuit of a conscious aim. But the truth lies in those two words ‘as if.’ As the genius of Darwin showed, the purpose is only an apparent one.” Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action (1953; reprint, Harmondsworth, Middlesex UK: Penguin, 1963), 16.
Evolution itself seems to be such a mindless and cruel thing. How can such heartless culling produce the magnificent designs that we see around us? It seems just about impossible that such a simple mechanical sieve could produce such amazing design in the biosphere . . . First I want to remind you of what Francis Crick called Orgel’s Second Rule. ‘Evolution is cleverer than you are.’ Now what Crick meant by this jape, of course, was that again and again and again evolutionists, molecular biologists, biologists in general, see some aspect of nature which seems to them to be sort of pointless or daft or doesn’t make much sense – and then they later discover it’s in fact an exquisitely ingenious design – it is a brilliant piece of design – that’s what Francis Crick means by Orgel’s Second Rule . . . What you have to understand is that the process itself has no foresight; it’s entirely mechanical; has no purpose – but it just happens that that very process dredges up, discovers, again and again and again, the most wonderfully brilliant designs – and these designs have a rationale. We can make sense of them. We can reverse-engineer them, and understand why they are the wonderful designs they are.
Daniel C. Dennett, speech celebrating the 30th anniversary of the publication of Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene, London, March 16, 2006; full text of speech available on the web at http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/selfish06/selfish06_index.html
accessed May 27, 2006
A telescope, a telephone, or a typewriter is a complex mechanism serving a particular function. Obviously, its manufacturer had a purpose in mind, and the machine was designed and built in order to serve that purpose. An eye, an ear, or a hand is also a complex mechanism serving a particular function. It, too, looks as if it had been made for a purpose. This appearance of purposefulness is pervading in nature, in the general structure of animals and plants, in the mechanisms of their various organs, and in the give and take of their relationships with each other. Accounting for this apparent purposefulness is a basic problem for any system of philosophy or of science.
George Gaylord Simpson, ‘‘The Problem of Plan and Purpose in Nature,” Scientific Monthly (June 1947): 481.
Finally, the logical conclusion follows from the truth of the two premises. This is simple enough. “X” appears to be fit within Class “A” because it is in fact a member of Class “A” and not Class “B.” Indeed, it seems obvious that when any given thing appears to fit squarely within a class of things, the burden of proving that it is not in that class should be on those who deny it. In the case of the appearance of design in nature – which everyone on both sides admits – the burden should be on those who deny design, not the other way around. Be that as it may, certainly one valid inference from the appearance of design is that design in fact happened.
In summary, therefore, all reasonable Darwinists agree that statement 1 is true. Moreover, all reasonable Darwinists should agree that if statements 1 and 2 are true, then the conclusion logically follows. The only matter dividing Darwinists and ID proponents lies in the Darwinists’ denial of the truth of the second statement.
Let’s look at that statement again:
Statement 2. Some aspects of living things exhibit these objectively discernible indicia of design.
As we have seen, a Darwinist would modify this statement as follows (modifications indicated by capitals):
Statement 2. Some aspects of living things APPEAR TO exhibit these objectively discernible indicia of design. THIS APPEARANCE, HOWEVER, IS AN ILLUSION, BECAUSE CHANCE AND NECESSITY HAVE MIMICKED DESIGN.
ID, then, is the project of demonstrating that the appearance of design in living things is the product of actual design; and Darwinism is the project of demonstrating that the appearance of design in living things is an illusion.
The challenge ID poses to Darwinism is daunting, because Darwinists have yet to demonstrate in a non-question begging way that the appearance of design is false. On the other hand, ID proponents have demonstrated beyond doubt that complex specified information and irreducible complexity are beyond the ken of chance or necessity and the combination of the two.
Where, then, are we left with lastyearon’s charge? It turns out that the charge is so absurd. What is meaningless about investigating whether the appearance of design is real or an illusion? Lastyearon’s ideological blinders have left him literally unable to see the obvious absurdity of his statement.