Design (Divine Design)
proper way to assess any theory is to weigh its explanatory advantages
against those of every extant rival. Neo-Darwinian natural selection
is endlessly fruitful, enjoying corroboration from an imposing
array of disciplines, including paleontology, genetics, systematics,
embryology, anatomy, biogeography, biochemistry, cell biology,
molecular biology, physical anthropology, and ethology. By contrast,
intelligent design lacks any naturalistic causal hypotheses and
thus enjoys no consilience with any branch of science. Its one
unvarying conclusion— "God must have made this thing"
- The New York Review of Books
"A God who creates a universe that
results in humans through purely natural processes, is more
intelligent than a God whose creation needs constant
supervision and tinkering!" Editor, AiS
"Evolution is a robust scientifically
derived observation that has been tested and confirmed again and again over
the past 150 years. Intelligent design is not science at all, but a well-financed political and religious
campaign to muddy science, and introduce religion in the
classroom." Editor, AiS
Some August 2005 articles
of note devastating the "intelligent design is science" argument:
- Review of Behe's Darwin's Black Box
- Behe's Empty Box
- Some Published Works on
Crews - Review of
books by Dembski, Behe, Well, Miller, Ruse & Haught
- The information Challenge
Dennett - Show Me the
Dorit - Devastating critique published in
et al. - How Not to Detect Design - A very technical refutation
Miracles and Molecules
Kidder - Review
of Phil Johnson's Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds
- Explaining Functional Complexity in Nature
Korthof - Does
Irreducible Complexity Refute neo-Darwinism?
McGough - Bad Science, Bad Theology
- ID: Constant Tampering by a Designer?
- Collection of Articles on the Failure of "Intelligent Design:"
Review of Darwin's Black Box
on the Defensive
- A Reducibly Complex Mousetrap
The Collapse of
History Report: Inteligent Design - Behe, Dembski, Wells, Miller,
Orr - Darwin v.
Intelligent Design (Again)
Orr - Why Intelligent Design Isn't
- Design Yes, Intelligent No - An excellent critique of ID
Devastating review of Dembski's arguments
Shermer - ID: Not Intelligent, Surely
Shermer - God & Evolution
-Why science & Religion are incompatable.
TalkDesign - Assessing ID claims
from mainstream science
Ussery - A Biochemist's
Response to Behe
Van Till - Dembski's NFL failure evident even to a Christian
Wein - A
detailed critique of William Dembski's 'No Free Lunch"
Wein's essay is a
remarkable piece of work. Together with a group of
mathematicians, physicists, and biologists, it is a clear
exposition of the failure of Dembski's and Behe's arguments.
He concludes his review of Dembski's "No Free Lunch" and ID in
general with these remarks-----
"No Free Lunch is
characterized by muddled thinking, fallacious arguments, errors,
equivocation and misleading use of technical jargon. Once these
are cleared up, the following conclusions become apparent:
- The chance-elimination
method is nothing but a god-of-the-gaps-argument. It merely
tells us to infer design when we have rejected all the
non-design hypotheses we can think of.
- In applying the
chance-elimination method to a biochemical system (the
bacterial flagellum), Dembski has failed to consider
evolutionary explanations involving change of function.
Instead, he merely considers and rejects an absurd
hypothesis based on purely random combination of parts--the
tornado in a junkyard scenario
- The No Free Lunch theorems
have no applicability to biological evolution
- The argument from alleged
fine-tuning of fitness functions turns out to be just a
trivial variation on the well-known argument from
cosmological and terrestrial fine-tuning.
- Dembski's idiosyncratic
concepts of complexity and information are
misleading, and his so-called Law of Conservation of
Information is fatally flawed.
- Specified complexity (CSI)
is not a marker of intelligent design. If specified
complexity is determined according to the
uniform-probability interpretation, then natural processes
are perfectly capable of generating it. If it is determined
by the chance-elimination method, then specified complexity
is just a disguise for the god-of-the-gaps argument.
- Dembski's claims about
statistics, information theory, evolutionary algorithms and
thermodynamics have not undergone peer review and have not
been accepted by the experts in those fields.
In short, No Free Lunch is
completely worthless, except as a work of pseudoscientific
rhetoric aimed at a mathematically unsophisticated audience
which may mistake its mathematical mumbo jumbo for genuine