Dembski’s Argument for Intelligent Design
1. Introduction
The existence of God is a matter that has been debated by philosophers and theologians for centuries. In recent years, the debate has been reignited by the theory of Intelligent Design (ID). Proponents of ID argue that it is impossible to account for the complexity of life without invoking the intervention of some higher power. One of the most prominent figures in the ID movement is William A. Dembski. In this essay, I will critically evaluate Dembski’s argument for ID. I will argue that his argument is fatally flawed and that ID is incompatible with scientific inquiry.
2. Dembski’s Argument
Dembski’s argument can be summarized as follows:
P1) Complexity and specified complexity cannot be explained by natural causes
P2) Life is complex and specified
C) Therefore, life must be explained by intelligent design
There are several problems with this argument. First, Dembski conflates complexity with specified complexity. Complexity refers to the number of parts in a system, whereas specified complexity refers to the arrangement of those parts. A watch is an example of a complex object, but it is not specified because its parts are arranged in a random manner. A watch that has been assembled according to a blueprint is an example of a specified complex object. Dembski’s argument conflates these two concepts and thus commits the fallacy of equivocation.
Second, Dembski’s premise that complexity and specified complexity cannot be explained by natural causes is simply false. There are numerous examples of complex phenomena that have been explained by natural causes, such as snowflakes, stalactites, and spiral galaxies. Even if we grant Dembski’s premise for the sake of argument, it does not follow that life must be explained by ID. For example, one could postulate that life is the result of some as-yet undiscovered natural process. Until ID can offer a positive explanation for life, it remains nothing more than an Ad Hoc hypothesis.
3. The Theory of Intelligent Design
The theory of Intelligent Design posits that certain features of the universe are best explained by the intervention of some higher power. Proponents of ID argue that life is too complex to have arisen through natural selection and that certain features of the universe (e.g., the fine-tuning of physical constants) are best explained by design. However, there are several problems with ID as a theory. First, it fails to make any positive predictions and thus cannot be falsified. Second, it relies on Arguments from Ignorance, which are fallacious arguments that posit something exists because we cannot explain it otherwise. Third, ID has been rejected by the vast majority of scientists as being incompatible with scientific inquiry. fourth and finally, even if we grant ID’s premises for the sake of argument, it does not follow that God or some similar Supreme Being exists. For example, one could postulate that aliens intervened in our evolutionary history or that our universe was created by a super intelligent computer program. Until ID can offer a positive explanation for life or the universe, it remains nothing more than an Ad Hoc hypothesis. Conclusion: In conclusion, I have shown that Dembski