In this blog post, based on William Dembski’s theory of intelligent design, we will examine the extent to which science can prove existence and how we might view the relationship between science and religion.
Can the theory of intelligent design be considered science?
In his book ‘Intelligent Design’, William Dembski presents an argument for bringing the theory of intelligent design into the realm of science. In Part 1, he seeks to establish the legitimacy of the theory by logically refuting various criticisms of it one by one. First, he defines the characteristics that distinguish miracles from the laws of nature, explaining that the miracles recorded in the Bible can be considered legitimate miracles. He then examines criticisms raised by philosophers such as Spinoza and Schleiermacher, demonstrating that the methodological naturalism they proposed is insufficient to completely rule out the possibility of miracles, and once again presents the possibility of design.
In Part 2, building on the justification established in Part 1, he presents evidence to support the theory of design. Demske argues that in order to infer that an object was designed, contingency, complexity, and specification must all be confirmed. Contingency is the factor that demonstrates the object is not the product of a spontaneous, non-intelligent process with no other alternatives. Complexity means that the object is not so simple that it can be easily explained by chance alone. Finally, specification means that the object exhibits meaningful patterns characteristic of intelligence. His argument is that if these three conditions are met—and especially if the probability is extremely low, the complexity is sufficiently high, and the specification is clear—then chance can be ruled out and it can be inferred that design exists. In this context, low probability is judged based on the cosmic probability limit.
However, no matter how scientifically Demski presents his evidence for intelligent design, his claims are difficult for researchers who adhere to naturalism to accept as science. This is because the moment one acknowledges the theory of intelligent design, the question of who the designer is inevitably follows. Even if we assume that the designer is not a God in the religious sense but rather an entity existing in the physical world, such as an extraterrestrial life form, we must then ask who created that designer. If one continues to trace these questions back, one inevitably reaches the conclusion that one must acknowledge the existence of the most indeterminate, complex, and specific being. Applying the logic that, according to the law of information conservation, the being that created another being must possess more information than that being, he argues that the ultimate being must ultimately be an omniscient and omnipotent being who created everything.
Can science explain all phenomena?
The dominant paradigm of modern science is based on the premise that science is the most reliable method for explaining natural phenomena. Empirical results accumulated through countless experiments and scientifically established laws, formulated with mathematical precision, further solidify science’s explanatory power. Since science is fundamentally based on observation and verification, the existence of God—which cannot be sensually confirmed or empirically verified—is not a subject that science can directly address. In other words, accepting the theory of intelligent design is closely linked to acknowledging the existence of God, and this can conflict with the methodology of modern science. Consequently, no matter how meticulously Dembski constructs the theory of intelligent design, many scientists often perceive it as pseudoscience rather than science.
Furthermore, modern science explains all phenomena as interactions between matter. These interactions must produce the same results under identical conditions and must occur within the material world. Science establishes phenomena that repeat identically regardless of time and place as laws and uses them to predict the future. Throughout the history of religion, it has been believed that the existence of God is revealed through exceptional events often called miracles. However, with the rapid advancement of science since the modern era, various phenomena that were once considered miracles have begun to be explained scientifically, and in the process, the scope of scientific explanation has continuously expanded.
Scientists seek to explain the origin of the universe and the origin of life based on these universal laws. This is because laws that apply equally in the present and the past are considered the most important basis for inferring the past. Some researchers also expect that religious phenomena will one day be scientifically explained. They anticipate that the causal relationships behind phenomena currently called “miracles” will eventually be elucidated, and that the phenomena of life will also be explainable within the framework of natural laws. Modern cosmology also presents various scientific models regarding the origin and evolution of the universe, and the observational finding that the universe is currently expanding is widely accepted. From this perspective, all phenomena in the world can ultimately be explained as interactions between matter governed by the laws of nature.
Can humans prove the essence of existence?
I once had an experience that could be called a “miracle.” After attending a church retreat, I began speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues was a truly wondrous experience. I felt as though I were speaking normally, but what actually came out of my mouth was a language I had never heard before. At times, I felt as though the meaning of what I wanted to say was being expressed exactly as I intended, while at other times, the tongues continued even when I had nothing specific to say. In Christianity, speaking in tongues is understood as a phenomenon in which the Holy Spirit, one of the three Persons of the Trinity, prays on our behalf. In contrast, science attempts to explain speaking in tongues as brain activity or a neurological phenomenon, viewing it as a subject of research where, even if the causal relationship has not yet been fully elucidated, it may someday be uncovered.
However, I believe modern science has a significant limitation. It is difficult to scientifically prove something that humans cannot perceive. However, the fact that something cannot be perceived does not necessarily mean it does not exist. From another perspective, while science can explain observable phenomena, it is difficult to say that it fully elucidates the very essence of those phenomena. For example, science would likely attempt to explain the cause of my speaking in tongues through electrical signals in the brain’s nervous system or various physiological processes. However, questions such as what the phenomenon of speaking in tongues means to an individual, or what its essence is, may be difficult to answer fully through scientific explanation alone. The question of why humans, who have evolved over time, exhibit this unique linguistic behavior that appears only in a religious context is also a question about essence.
To explain these questions of essence, we can consider a thought experiment.
In modern science, various theories and hypotheses regarding the possibility of teleportation have been proposed. To simplify this, one can imagine a process in which an object is completely disassembled at the atomic level or smaller, and that information is transmitted to another location to reconstruct the object in the exact same state. Let’s assume the initial location is A and the subsequent location is B. In that case, are the “me” that was at A and the “me” reconstructed at B truly identical beings?
If the state at A were perfectly reproduced at B, outwardly, it would clearly be the same person. The memories would be the same, the appearance would be the same, and the behavior would be identical. However, from “my” perspective, the issue changes. Could the consciousness that exists at this very moment continue uninterrupted even after being briefly interrupted during the teleportation process? Or is the being created at B, despite having the same memories, actually a completely new entity?
I believe that while science can explain the characteristics of an existing object, it cannot fully prove existence itself. If you were to ask the reconstructed “me” whether it is indeed the “me” from A, it would undoubtedly answer in the affirmative. However, only the “me” that existed in A can know the true answer to that question. This is because one existence cannot be completely connected to another.
We perceive one another only through our senses—such as sight, hearing, and touch—or, in other words, through various media.
In the same vein, one might ask whether we are living in a vast virtual world rather than in actual reality, as depicted in the movie ‘The Matrix’. If we do exist within such a closed world, it may be impossible to fully verify the truth that lies outside it. Ultimately, while science is an excellent tool for explaining observable phenomena, it is difficult to assert that it fully explains the very essence of all existence. Science tells us many things, but it does not tell us everything.
The same applies to time. Just as the relationship between one existence and another is not completely connected, the present and the past are also not fully connected to one another. We can only infer the past through various media that serve as traces of it. However, these media alone cannot fully verify the essence itself. Nevertheless, believing that science alone can explain everything may be an overgeneralization. We must also acknowledge the possibility that there are realms science cannot explain.
To what extent can science explain existence?
Student Oh Gwang-seok argues that William Dembski’s theory of intelligent design could be fully accepted within the realm of science if it were logically strengthened. However, I believe that no matter how scientifically sophisticated the theory of intelligent design becomes, as long as it necessarily presupposes the existence of a designer or God—whose existence is difficult to perceive or verify empirically—it will not be easily accepted within the methodology of modern science.
Therefore, rather than attempting to prove the theory of intelligent design more rigorously, raising the fundamental question of whether science can fully explain all existence and all phenomena may be a more meaningful approach to expanding the discussion of intelligent design—even if it could spark a much greater debate among science, philosophy, and religion.
