In this blog post, we will examine the boundaries between science and religion, focusing on William Dembski’s theory of “Intelligent Design,” and explore whether Intelligent Design can be established as a scientific theory.
Christianity, Creationism, and the Emergence of Intelligent Design
Christianity is one of the most influential religions in the world. Countless churches and cathedrals are located throughout the globe, and in Europe, it is common for a church to be the tallest and most magnificent building in a city. Every year, the world celebrates Christmas, and historically, Christianity has also been deeply involved in tragic events such as the Crusades. Despite enduring countless persecutions and oppressions, Christianity has established itself as one of the world’s largest religions today. Christian creationism has long stood in opposition to Darwin’s theory of evolution, offering its own explanation for the origin of life and the beginning of the world. Furthermore, in Christianity, the Bible is accepted as a scripture of absolute authority containing the word of God.
William Dembski’s “Intelligent Design” is a theory that represents this creationist position. However, he does not limit himself to general theological arguments but seeks to develop his case through the language of science. Although he presents “Intelligent Design” as a scientific methodology to counter Darwin’s theory of evolution, in my view, he has not succeeded in refuting the theory of evolution as a scientific theory or in sufficiently proving that “Intelligent Design” itself is a valid scientific principle. I intend to examine why his arguments, which appear persuasive on the surface, have limitations.
The Concept of “Targets” and the Limitations of Intelligent Design
William Dembski, in explaining the concept of a “target,” argues that it possesses “exceptional and specified complexity.” “Exceptional” means that it is an event that cannot be easily imitated by anyone; if anyone could reproduce it, it would no longer function as a target. “Specified” means that it has a single meaning. Unlike a random arrangement of letters, the word “apple” has a specific meaning. Furthermore, “complexity” implies that the probability of the same result occurring again by chance is extremely low. He argues that any phenomenon satisfying these conditions was designed by an “intelligent cause.”
For example, consider a situation where 12 shooting stars fall in succession at 12:12 p.m. on December 12, 2012. This is an extremely exceptional event that no one can replicate, and it is also a specified event with a common meaning—the number 12. It is also a complex event with an extremely low probability of occurring. In such a case, it could be considered a “target” according to William Dembski’s criteria.
However, there is a significant problem with the explanation that such a “target” is automatically the result of “intelligent design.” The countless electronic devices and machines created by humans can indeed be viewed as having been designed by intelligent beings—namely, humans. Experts create structures that are sufficiently exceptional, specific, and complex during the design process. The smartphones and tablets we use are also products of intelligent design.
Therefore, in William Dembski’s “intelligent design”—which seeks to replace Darwin’s theory of evolution and naturalism—the designer must necessarily be a being superior to humans, one who created both humans and the laws of nature. This follows the same logic as humans, who create computers, being superior to computers. Although William Dembski states that he does not specify who this being is, his entire argument ultimately presupposes the existence of God.
Therefore, for “Intelligent Design” to be recognized as a scientific theory, verifiable evidence must be presented not only regarding the existence of the being who designed humans and nature, but also regarding the specific methods by which that being carried out the design. While the claim that “if there is design, there must be a designer” is logically possible, science demands a means of verifying this rather than merely the existence of the designer itself.
However, William Dembski states that God remains silent regarding human inquiry. At the very least, for “intelligent design” to become a scientific theory that replaces naturalism, it must be possible to study and verify the way in which God designed humans and nature. The “method of design” referred to here means the processes that took place to form the first life or nature. This is also connected to the aspect of naturalism that seeks to explain the emergence of life through chance.
Of course, modern evolutionary biology has not yet fully elucidated every process involved in the origin of life. However, through research in various fields—such as paleontology, genetics, molecular biology, and comparative anatomy—a vast body of evidence has been accumulated regarding the common ancestor of living organisms and the process of evolution. In contrast, while “intelligent design” claims that the design of the original Designer can be studied, it fails to present the reasons why such research is actually possible or the methods for verification, ultimately relying solely on the concept of “exceptional and specified complexity.”
Furthermore, William Dembski attempts to justify, through the Bible, the claim that the designer with an “intelligent cause” is God. He argues, “The Bible is without error; it is merely that humans misinterpret its meaning.” However, the “intelligent designer” is a core premise of the “intelligent design” theory. Relying on the scriptures of a specific religion rather than empirical verification for the core premise of a scientific theory raises questions about the scientific nature of that theory.
Although he describes science and theology as two equal windows through which to view the world, it is difficult to view them as having the same nature, given that science can be revised through observation and verification, whereas theology is based on interpretations premised on a specific system of belief.
Are miracles and agnosticism compatible with science?
William Dembski argues that agnosticism has excluded miracles and intelligent design from the realm of science. The agnosticism he refers to is the position that anything not belonging to the material world is beyond human knowledge and cannot be addressed scientifically. He argues that phenomena transcending the laws of nature may indeed exist, and that agnosticism has blocked the possibility of such research. In fact, he explains that agnosticism, naturalism, and Darwin’s theory of evolution led to the decline of British natural theology.
Miracles share characteristics quite similar to what William Dembski refers to as “signs.” For example, if a patient deemed to have almost no chance of recovery by modern medicine does recover, people might call this a miracle. This is an exceptional event that cannot be replicated and may appear to be a highly improbable event with specific significance. Proponents of intelligent design would interpret this as the result of God’s intelligent design. So, since such phenomena appear to transcend the laws of nature, should we revive the study of natural theology?
Let’s consider it this way. Before antibiotics to treat tuberculosis were developed, tuberculosis was considered a fatal disease, and at the time, it was a condition that was difficult to treat with modern medicine. However, humanity developed antibiotics and made the treatment of tuberculosis—which was once regarded as a miracle—possible through scientific principles. So what, then, do “miracles” and “intelligent design by a Creator” actually mean?
Many phenomena that were once considered miracles have, over time, been revealed to be explainable by the laws of nature, and humanity has solved problems by discovering such principles. Even today, there are cases where the recovery of a terminally ill cancer patient—whose condition is medically very difficult to treat—is accepted as a miracle. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that such phenomena are simply the result of as-yet-undiscovered laws of nature or mechanisms of biological processes. The explanation that future science may elucidate these phenomena and develop treatments seems to align more closely with the course of scientific progress to date.
Ultimately, the reason “miracles” and “intelligent design” have lost their place in science is not so much because agnosticism has fundamentally ruled out their possibility, but rather because phenomena that were once inexplicable have gradually been explained by natural laws as science has advanced, thereby reducing the need for supernatural explanations.
“Darwin’s theory of evolution” and naturalism have, over a long period, continuously discovered and accumulated natural laws capable of explaining various natural phenomena. Many phenomena that were difficult to explain in the past have been understood through research in evolutionary biology and the natural sciences, and based on these laws and principles, humanity has achieved remarkable advancements in science and technology. Humankind has reached an era where we can fly freely through the sky, cross oceans to traverse continents in a single day, communicate in real time with people on the other side of the globe, and explore space. These advancements are all achievements of science—the result of understanding natural phenomena and accumulating verifiable theories. The author finds it difficult to view the theory of “intelligent design” as indispensable to the progress of science.
Does the complexity of life prove intelligent design?
William Dembski identifies the limitations of “Darwin’s theory of evolution” and naturalism in the field of biology. He argues that it is impossible for the cellular structures of humans, animals, and plants to have formed solely through the random processes described by naturalism, and that human intellectual activity cannot be explained by chemical neural transmission in the brain alone.
Indeed, the way cellular structures and components are intricately interconnected is nothing short of astonishing. Observing this complexity may lead one to believe that a Creator must have designed it. William Dembski argues that the probability of such complexity arising by chance—even when considering the entire universe—is so remote that it is virtually impossible, and he explains that these specific, complex, and exceptional structures must have been designed by an “intelligent designer.”
However, this argument is at odds with current findings in biology. A body of research has accumulated showing that the complex structures of living organisms were not completed all at once but were formed gradually over long periods through processes such as variation, natural selection, gene duplication, mutations, and functional changes. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that complexity automatically implies the existence of a designer.
Furthermore, “irreducible complexity”—a concept frequently cited as evidence for “intelligent design”—is not accepted as a universal principle in modern biology. “Irreducible complexity” refers to the idea that if even one component is removed, the entire system ceases to function. However, there are many examples in actual living organisms that cannot be fully explained by this concept alone.
For example, humans can survive even after the removal of the appendix, and the kidneys can function with just one. Plants, too, can continue to grow even after losing some of their leaves. Red blood cells perform their normal functions even without a nucleus, and viruses, despite lacking even a cellular structure, exhibit characteristics closely associated with life. These examples do not align with the simplistic explanation that living organisms must possess all elements perfectly in order to exist.
According to the theory of evolution as explained by naturalism, the first life forms are understood to have been very simple organisms, not the complex organisms we see today. Although the origin of life remains an unresolved field of research, current science continues to propose and test various hypotheses, including the RNA World hypothesis. While no final conclusion has been reached, the approach differs from one that simply assumes a transcendent being, as scientists are actively exploring possible mechanisms through diverse experiments and research.
Even if modern science has not yet fully elucidated the origin of life, it is difficult to say that “intelligent design” has solved the problem. This is because “intelligent design” merely presents the conclusion that a creator made life, without offering any verifiable explanation or research methods regarding the processes and principles through which life was formed.
Conclusion
Considering the probability of the genetic information necessary to form a complete cell and living organism coming into being, explaining the origin of life through naturalism alone may seem difficult. Because of this, “intelligent design” can sound intuitively persuasive.
However, scientific theories are established based on observation, experimentation, and testability—not on intuition or probability. To date, “intelligent design” has not sufficiently demonstrated testable research methods or predictive capabilities, and it is not widely accepted as a scientific theory within the scientific community. Ultimately, “intelligent design” is judged to be a theory that is closer to a philosophical and religious argument—an attempt to express a theistic worldview in the language of science—rather than a scientific explanation.
