Central to the scientific method is a process for deciding between conflicting models of how the universe operates. It is very instructive to apply this process to the argument from design for the existence of a higher intelligence in the universe. The argument from design is commonly associated with William Paley (1743 – 1805) and for those who like big words, is also called as the teleological argument for God’s existence. A counter argument is given in Richard Dawkins’ book: The Blind Watch Maker. The basic argument from design is, however, much older than Paley; it goes back to the ancient Greeks. Needless to say, Dawkins’ book has failed to lay the argument to rest. If one checks the current state of the arguments on the topic[1], they typically are of the form: Anyone who does not recognize design in the universe is in denial, and the counter argument is: Those who see design in the universe are delusional. Needless to say, neither argument is particularly convincing. So what can the scientific method add to resolving the impasse? Quite a bit actually.
Let’s begin by looking at the actual form of the argument. It was stated succinctly by Cicero (106BCE – 43 BCE): When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers? This analogy was expanded upon, most famously, by Paley (quoted from the Wikipedia):
[S]uppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think … that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for [a] stone [that happened to be lying on the ground]?… For this reason, and for no other; namely, that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it.
So what about the watch and how do we know that it was designed? We begin with one of the mantras of this series of essays: The meaning is in the model. To understand the watch and its creation, our mind, either consciously or unconsciously, develops a model for its origin. The watch is deduced to have to been made by humans, not by non-human agencies, and humans do things by design. Thus, by a two-step process we arrive at design. Now, the watch is fairly obvious, but what about that pointed rock on the ground? Is it due to design or natural causes? Is it simply a broken rock or is it an arrow head? Here the question of design is strictly one of if it was made by humans or not. If the indications on the rock show signs of human manufacture it is considered due to design, and if not, then accident.
The typical theist would claim that the universe and everything in it is designed. Thus, we cannot do the comparison of something designed to something that was not designed; a technique that was useful in deciding if the watch was humanly designed or not. So how do we tell if something is designed or not? Use the methodology from science, of course.
In science, there are two distinct steps with any model: first the model must be constructed, and then it must be tested. Model construction is a creative activity and does rely on analogy and pattern recognition. Thus, in the initial stage, the argument from design is on good grounds. Now for the crux of the matter: the crucial test is neither how good the analogy is, nor how striking the apparent pattern, but rather if the argument from design passes the tests of parsimony and also makes successful predictions for observations. The scientific method defines three criteria for judging models: the successful description of past observations, the ability to make correct predictions for future observations, and simplicity. Being able to describe past observations is just the price to play the game, and with sufficient ingenuity, can usually be done. The definitive test of a scientific model is the ability to make predictions for novel phenomena. By predictions, I mean definite predictions that can be falsified. Not the kind of predictions made by Nostradamus that after the fact can be claimed to have been fulfilled, but rather definite predictions that can be tested, like it will rain tomorrow at TRIUMF between 3:00 and 4:00 pm.
Finally, there is simplicity. Yes, there is always simplicity or parsimony. By simplicity, I mean the elimination of assumptions that do not help the model make predictions. Today, common descent for living things is pretty much established and is mainly challenged by gross violations of the simplicity principle. A prime example is the omphalos hypothesis of Phillip Gosse (1810 – 1888). He stated that the world was created six thousand years ago, but in a manner that cannot be distinguished from one that is much older. As pointed out in a previous essay, that hypothesis can only be eliminated by an appeal to parsimony. As for design, natural selection is one way of generating the design of living things without the need for external intelligence and, at least at the small scale, natural selection is observed to be happening. So, can an external intelligence as suggested by the argument from design, or the idea of intelligent design, add anything useful to this? Or can they both be eliminated, like the omphalos hypothesis, by the appeal to parsimony? The challenge to the proponents of the argument from design (and similarly for intelligent design) is to make precise testable predictions, not postdictions, that distinguish it from natural selection.
Additional posts in this series will appear most Friday afternoons at 3:30 pm Vancouver time. To receive a reminder follow me on Twitter: @musquod.
[1] This post was partly motivated by such an exchange on Huffington Post.
Tags: intelligent design, Paley, Philosophy of science, The argument from design
The evolution of a watch is demonstrated here
http://geopense.blogspot.ca/2010/03/app-evolution-is-blind-watchmaker.html
BTW Byron, beautifully put as usual. I think consideration of parsimony is one of the most convincing ways of arguing scientifically. I look forward to future posts.
If objects like watches and eyes are functional and arranged in such a way as to appear designed, then is it really more parsimonious to suppose that there are an arbitrary number of classes of functional objects—designed, evolved, etc.—than that there is only one class of functional object—designed—especially when we only know from direct experience that a single class (designed) exists?
Having a single class of functional object suffers from the need to postulate an intelligent designer of which we have no direct knowledge, but it’s a much shorter leap of intuition from all the intelligent designers that we do know to one that we don’t than from the ones we know to a set of natural laws that accidentally create functional objects that look designed.
My point is not an attempt to convince you that intelligent design is correct—far from it. However, I think that Okham’s Razor only really comes down on the scientific explanation when you have a good grasp of the elegance and inevitability of natural law. This usually requires a mix of predisposition and extensive study of natural phenomena. In other words, an appeal to parsimony will work on scientists, but not on those who are experientially far from the scientific paradigm.
Tom, we most certainly do not only have direct experience for the “designed” class of objects, and the leap from the known natural designers to a completely unknown, unevidenced, and supernatural God is indeed an immeasurably large one.
In the end, the question is: Does the assumption of an intelligent designer lead to any testable predictions? If not, then it is of no interest or use.
Doug, while I agree with you that the leap from natural designers to the Intelligent Designer is immeasurably large (indeed, that it is a clear logical fallacy), there are a great many people who do not agree with us. The leap from functional designed objects that originate with an intelligent designer (a person) to functional, apparently-designed objects that come about through some accident of circumstances is, for them, the big leap.
It has long seemed to me that the Creationists and IDers that I have encountered classify objects into “designed with purpose” (objects that we know from direct experience are designed by people), “looks designed with purpose” and “random assortment, possibly without purpose.” From this starting point, the leap to natural laws producing apparently designed and purposeful objects seems immeasurably large; it’s much simpler to suppose an Intelligence behind the design.
This becomes important if we begin to think about how to convince a wider audience of the beauty and logic of scientific theories.
An alternative to making predictions is to declare the opposition in default for failure of postdiction (which actually seems to be the preferred strategy of creationists). “Being able to describe past observations is just the price to play the game, and with sufficient ingenuity, can usually be done.” Yes, and I am pretty sure that natural selection from random variations can in fact do the job. But given the effectively infinite variety of life, the task of explaining all past observations will never be done. When you have explained the eye that sees, then there’s the eye on the peacock’s tail, and after that the I of conscious experience, and then who knows what. If you don’t want to appeal to magic then the price of this game will never have been paid in full. But then of course finding the price of admission becomes a game in itself, and we should thank those of little ingenuity whenever they come up with interesting puzzles for us to solve. (Yes, we have usually thought of whatever they suggest long ago, but we should still thank them out of politeness – and then ask them to go out and find us more challenging ones)
Google Images: “Belousov-Zhabotinsky” 11,600 images
Conway’s “Game of Life,” Stephen Wolfram’s cellular automata, Mandelbrot’s set and fractal generators, wavelet summations, snowflakes; Miller, Urey, Stanley, Ponnamperuma and abiogenesis
There is nothing to know. Given sufficient complexity for positive feedback plus energy to run the system, it merely happens. A shaken bag of watch parts does not make watches. Mix a ketone or aldehyde, an amine, an isocyanide, and a carboxylic acid to get a marvelously complex bis-amide from the Ugi reaction, within minutes. Starting materials to product, the atom count difference is one molecule of water,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ugi_Reaction_Scheme.png
“A single failed reaction is a setback. A million failed reactions are a combinatorial library.” Managers cannot manage discovery, they can only manage to end it (Hell’s Bells Laboratory to Lucent Technologies to nothing).
Who created the Creator?
Postulating a Creator just complicates things unnecessarily.
We implicitly assume that the Universe had a beginning, then we ask what happened before! So we want to keep our cake & also to eat it. We want a definite starting point, we don’t like infinities…
Possibly the Universe is some sort of multidimensional sphere – so asking how it started is a sensible as asking what is South of the South Pole, which is a meaningful sounding question that in this context is meaningless!
Claiming that God did it, leads to the question where did God come from, if the answer is that God always existed, then one could also say that the Universe has always existed in some form (Some string theories suggest that the Big Bang was simply a phase change). So insisting on a Creator God, simply complicates things without providing a useful answer. Besides which, no useful explanation is forthcoming on how such a God could create the Universe.