This will probably upset some, but I have been reading various arguments for Intelligent Design, and I have to say that what I have read is rather poorly argued. Now, I am not saying anything about the validity of the arguments themselves, I am simply saying that the examples they choose are definitely poorly chosen. Also, some of the forms of the argument are rather peculiar, in one they argue from morphology of the organism, in another from the actual DNA encoding while ignoring morphology, it seems as if they are choosing the argument to pick that which best supports their case.

Now, before anyone starts making assumptions about my beliefs, let me present my thoughts. I have a strong religious faith, but I also believe that G-d is superior to any human. If a human speaker can simplify explanations when talking to children, then G-d can simplify explanations of cosmogenesis when talking to a bunch of semi-literate herdsmen just freed from slavery, so I allow that when Genesis and science conflict, that perhaps Genesis represents a simplification of the reality due to the audience he is addressing. I also believe that he may have provided an allegorical creation story for the simple reason that people who spent generations trapped in Egypt may have expected something familiar, and so rather than presenting a truth which would cause his messenger to be rejected, he provided a story which served important functions but was, at its base, false.Or at best, an allegory.

As far as evolution is concerned, I have no objections to it, but I have no particular investment in it either. It is a scientific theory which provides a fair fit to the evidence. It has obviously required modification in the past and may in the future, or it may even be rejected entirely, but that is true of any scientific theory. I do disagree with those who argue that somehow it disproves G-d's existence, as I see nothing in the theory that says anything about a creator. G-d could work through evolution, there is simply nothing in the theory that argues against G-d.

And I think that may be one of the problems with ID. The proponents of ID took the bad arguments of evolutionary atheists at face value. Well, some did. Others are young earth creationists who see in evolution an argument against the young earth. But ignoring the young earth group, the rest accepted the silly claims that evolution disproved G-d's guiding hand and so set out to find that hand. The problem being that G-d is so far beyond human understanding that, were he so inclined, he could cause all of creation without leaving a trace. The ID proponents forget G-d stands outside of all creation, outside of the laws of physics and outside of time itself. He established the rules and saw the course of all of creation when he formed it. So, he did not need to leave traces of his design, he could simply have created nature such that all he desired would come to pass. Even things that seem random are predictable to him, as he is not constrained by our temporal view. So there is no need for G-d to leave evidence of his presence, unless he wanted to do so. The very laws of physics could simply be chosen such that his will is fulfilled, but that would be impossible to prove¹.

However, let us leave all that aside for the moment and focus on my original topic, the examples used by the proponents of intelligent design. Should they truly wish to convince others of the validity of their theory, I think that the examples they have chosen are particularly weak ones. Allow me to explain.

First, the classical example of irreducible complexity, the eye. The argument goes that without any of the millions of pieces the eye is worthless and so the eye had to evolve in its finished form for it to be of worth. However, that argument is simply wrong, and in a number of ways.

First, ask anyone who wears glasses whether or not an eye has to be present in its entirety to be of any utility. Or ask someone with cataracts whether they would choose to simply poke out their eyes. The fact is that as a defective eye still provides utility, a partially formed eye would provide utility as well. It may not serve as well as a true eye would, but it would still give some advantage.

Nor are the parts of the eyes of no worth independently, the rods and cones and other retinal bits and pieces are essentially nothing but an improved version of the photo-receptors present on even the simplest of micro-organisms. Actually, some biologists even proposed that the eye could evolve from a cluster of photo-receptors which became recessed in the body, allowing light to be more selectively interpreted. Admittedly, some of the intermediate stages would provide only very limited benefit, but none would provide any disadvantage². From what I have read, I am not entirely convinced this is the specific mechanism through which the eye evolved, but then again the author presented it simply as one possibility.

And that is the important point. It does not matter if we know how the eye evolved³. What matters for the purposes of the ID argument is that the components of the eye can be traced back to preexisting structures and that intermediate stages either provide some benefit or are neutral in terms of survival. Thus rather than requiring that the eye appeared fully formed, the existing theories of evolution would allow that the eye could have evolved stepwise from existing photo-receptors. Which is why I often tell proponents of ID that they should leave the eye example out of their arguments, as it really does not make their case.

Which brings me to the next example, the flagellum. The ID proponents tend to focus on specific variations and talk of "little biological motors", but in the end, they are just talking about flagella. Even the most complicated means of locomotion involving multiple flagella still can be traced back to the single basic flagellum, and so, despite all the other verbiage, the argument goes back to the origins of the humble flagellum.

And this is where the ID argument appears to get dishonest. Now, before anyone gets irate, let me explain. I am not saying that the ID proponents are dishonest, nor am I saying they are arguing with anything but the purest of motives. However, the word "pious fraud"⁴ exists for a reason, and this argument simply sounds like the ID proponents are changing the terms of the argument in midstream in order to bolster their argument.

Previously, as in the case of the eye, the argument was form morphology, that is from the form of the organism. The argument was that a simplified version of the eye would not work. However, when we get to the flagellum, suddenly it is a bout DNA and how the elements of DNA which define the flagellum could not work if one were removed. That is a drastic departure from the previous argument.

And one can see why this change took place. If we look at the flagellum morphologically, it is evident that a lengthening and narrowing of a pseudopod could easily produce a flagellum, and that at each stage it would provide utility. This would make an argument based on morphology pretty much a lost cause.

However, when we turn tot he DNA argument, it gets silly as well. Yes, changing DNA willy-nilly will produce horrible results. But who said that mutation works by a single change in the DNA chain? If two changes are required for a useful change, then any single changes will die off, and we won't see a viable mutant until one is born with two changes. Increasing the number does not make the argument any different. Now, of course, a change requiring forty or fifty changes before it is useful will likely never appear. But I am skeptical ofd claims that the entire genetic code for a flagellum must be present before it will be a useful appendage. I am no expert in genetics, but since genetics is expressed in gross form, and as there are intermediate stages between smooth exterior and flagellum which still have utility, I have to say that there is some intermediate stage in the DNA which is viable and useful as well.

And that is why I say this is a particularly bad argument. First, it departs from the easily understood argument from morphology to an argument about composition of DNA. Some may be impressed by the appearance of erudition, but I think more will react as I did and think the increased complexity is intended to obfuscate. Second, by describing simple structures in overly flower ways, such as the "little biological motor" description, it makes it sound deceptive, a plain presentation would help. Third, and most importantly, by claiming that complex structures can never exist without appearing wholly formed, it denies common sense. If the morphology allows for intermediate stages, then DNA must allow intermediate stages as well, to claim otherwise is implausible, to say the least.

As I said before, I am not ill-disposed towards the arguments of intelligent design. I approached ID with an open mind and I was quite ready to hear argument for signs of design. But my expectations were just not met. Where I expected arguments that the order represented by living systems exceeded the energy inputs and violated laws of thermodynamics, I instead got the weak arguments above. I know that the ID movement has invested a lot in irreducible complexity, but to me it seems a dead end. Almost no living system exists which would not perform some function in a simpler version. And as an attribute does not need to be useful, only neutral with regard to survival, to persist indefinitely, it just seems the irreducible complexity argument has some pretty huge hurdles to overcome.

But it remains to be seen. I am as yet unconvinced by the ID arguments. Whatever the weaknesses of modern evolutionary theory, and like all theories it has them, at the moment it provides far stronger arguments than the ID proponents do. I am open to any arguments, however, and I will continue to listen to anyone who cares to make an argument in either direction.

At the moment, though, intelligent design just seems to be making a very weak case for itself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Actually this perspective makes irrelevant even such questions as whether the Torah is written by man or received from G-d. It could be entirely written by man, even written by a single man as an intentional lie, and yet still represent the will of G-d. And yes, I know my belief system is completely unverifiable and makes it impossible to argue against G-d at all, even makes irrelevant all the textual analysis arguments against scriptures, but faith is not subject to the rigors of  a scientific theory. Faith and science are different things, and there is no requirement that faith be falsifiable or subject to experimental proof or disproof.

2. It is a common mistake to think that a trait must have a benefit to remain in the gene pool. In reality, even traits which decrease survival persist for some time. But more importantly, a trait which neither harms nor aids in survival can persist indefinitely. So the gradual formation of a depression in the region of multiple photoreceptors does not need to provide an advantage, even if it is simply neutral in terms of survival it can persist indefinitely.

3. One other problem with the ID position is that there is not one "eye". The compound eyes of insects differ greatly as do the eyes of several other species. Instead of a single design there are actually a few types of eyes, which seems to me to argue in favor of evolution. It seems a designer would have settled on one optimal eye, the way Ford uses the same components in multiple designs. Many types of eyes seems to argue for independent development from many sources.

4. When did "pious fraud" come to mean hypocrite to most people? Pious fraud literally means a deception performed in order to strengthen the faith of others. It is not hypocritical, it is simply using deception to fortify others' belief in a system the defrauder shares. However, somehow it has mutated in popular language to mean something quite different.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE

Apparently I missed some of the argument about flagella. It seems that some ID proponents argue from magnified images and their appearance of being mechanical structures to claim they are irreducibly complex.

However, part of that is a problem inherent in working with very tiny objects. At a certain size, it becomes nearly impossible to make things smooth. Just as a razor's blade appears craggy at certain magnifications, or the way computer images devolve into large blocks, very tiny structures often appear more mechanical, as the components simply are too large to fit smoothly together.

Well, I will have to read some alternate flagellum articles and get back to this, as what I have found so far is obviously not the best of the arguments on this topic, and I would hate to base my claims on arguing against the second string. I strive to be fair above all else.

So, for the moment, I still stand by my claim that the eye argument is just wrong, but I suspend judgment on the flagellum article until I find some better proponents. However, I do still believe that the ID movement has put out some relatively weak arguments. I may be basing that opinion on the arguments of the rank and file, but the rank and file learn from the leading lights, so if they have weak arguments, it does show a weakness higher up in the movement as well.

However, I will be returning to this topic, as it does fascinate me.