Specified Complexity–Neither of Chance Nor of Necessity
June 21, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall
A friend just sent me an article from the May 30, 2005 issue of The New Yorker titled “Devolution: Why intelligent design isn’t.“ Despite the fact that the author, H. Allen Orr, calls intelligent design “junk science” and claims that the hype over the movement (and William Dembski’s work in particular) only exists “because an innumerate public is easily impressed by a bit of mathematics,” he actually gives a decent, quick summary of specified complexity as an argument for intelligent design . He says:
According to Dembski, a complex object must be the result of intelligence if it was the product neither of chance nor of necessity. The novel “Moby Dick,” for example, didn’t arise by chance (Melville didn’t scribble random letters), and it wasn’t the necessary consequence of a physical law (unlike, say, the fall of an apple). It was, instead, the result of Melville’s intelligence. Dembski argues that there is a reliable way to recognize such products of intelligence in the natural world. We can conclude that an object was intelligently designed, he says, if it shows “specified complexity”–complexity that matches an “independently given pattern.” The sequence of letters “JKXVCJUDOPLVM” is certainly complex: if you randomly type thirteen letters, you are very unlikely to arrive at this particular sequence. But it isn’t specified it doesn’t match any independently given sequence of letters. If, on the other hand, I ask you for the first sentence of “Moby Dick” and you type the letters “CALLMEISHMAEL,” you have produced something that is both complex and specified. The sequence you typed is unlikely to arise by chance alone, and it matches an independent target sequence (the one written by Melville). Dembski argues that specified complexity, when expressed mathematically, provides an unmistakable signature of intelligence. Things like “CALLMEISHMAEL,” he points out, just don’t arise in the real world without acts of intelligence.
The words of Melville’s novel, like the DNA in the cells of our body:
- Did not (and could not) come together randomly by chance.
- Did not come together out of necessity (i.e., the physical laws of the universe did not determine their arrangement).
- The pattern that emerged is complex (i.e., it is not a simple pattern like ABABAB).
- The pattern that did come together communicates meaningful information.
- In our experience of the world, specified complexity occurs only as a result of the work of an intelligent agent, so we can reasonably conclude that this case (DNA and all of life) is no different.
Take a look at this article and the brief arguments the author offers against the claims of Dembski and others. Even though Orr is clearly against the I.D. movement, this is the first time I’ve seen the press explain and address the actual arguments, and that’s a step in the right direction.
Related posts:
- Intelligent Design Lecture
- The Heart of Intelligent Design Theory
- The Wedge
- Journeyman Reflects Our Cultural Blind Spot
- Design and Knowledge
- R. C. Sproul Interviews Ben Stein
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Main Page, Science
content rss
June 21st, 2005 at 9:45 am
That was a good article. From it I learned that Intelligent Design stuff is more intelligent than I suspected it would be. I learned too that its critics arguments are more intelligent and developed than I would have expected them to be.
June 21st, 2005 at 11:04 am
Wow, this is the first time I've seen an ID critic that doesn't attack a straw man but actually presents the ID arguments fairly!
While this turn of events is surprising and welcome, I still find the criticism lacking. Consider the following (emphasis added):
What is important to see is that the success of Orr's example relies on intelligence! It is “We” who design “global-positioning systems”! “We” design “cars”! “We” design “computers”!
Thus, when Orr says that “this process is thoroughly Darwinian” he is wrong. The “small changes” and “improvements” he cites as proof that parts “become essential” tacitly imports intelligence into the argument! Such parts are essential because they were designed! Intelligent humans build cars, computers, and GPS systems, and they determine which parts will be utilized, modified, etc. Whatever changes occur over time are the result of human intelligence making the necessary modifications—i.e., intelligent design! So, Orr's argument against ID tacitly relies on it!
June 21st, 2005 at 11:14 am
Bill, I am curious as to why you suspected that the Intelligent Design stuff would not be all that intelligent.
June 21st, 2005 at 11:53 am
Bill, it really is an interesting subject, and this barely scratches the surface! The arguments are compelling enough that there are people in the movement who aren't even theists (Berlinski is one I know of who's agnostic).
I have a few recommendations for anyone who's interested in learning more about what's going on with intelligent design:
Nancy Pearcey has probably the best explanation (for non-scientists like me) of the issue of the information in our cells and why this points to intelligence in a chapter of her book, The Soul of Science.
Also, Phillip Johnson's books are very accessible and give an overview of all the issues involved–science, philosophy, and politics. He's probably the best author to start with.
Finally, there's a DVD I like called “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” (you can get it on Amazon) that explains the idea of specified complexity.
June 21st, 2005 at 11:55 am
Excellent point as usual, Tim!
June 21st, 2005 at 1:32 pm
Actually, the best place to start is Science & Evidence for Design in the Universe by Behe, Dembski, and Meyer.
June 21st, 2005 at 6:06 pm
Because it has been consistently referred to as bad science by people I respect.
June 21st, 2005 at 6:24 pm
I think you are asking too much of the car metaphor, Tim. It's an illustration rather than an argument. If you refer back to his celular examples, you'll see that he is not refering to something designed, nor would the changes have to be designed for his point to carry.
I am intrigued by the arguments. ID does seem to be to be polemic and apologetic at its core rather than a branch of science. As Orr points out, the theory of evolution has led to vast numbers of experiments and discoveries. We have yet to see what experiments and discoveries would come from the ID theories. ID seems to be dealing primarily with the pre-celular life, which we have no way of observing or experimenting with. While I agree that there is a creator, and affirm the basic thrust of intelligent design, it seems less useful in terms of helping us futher discover and explain the universe through observation and experimentation than the theory of evolution. As Orr suggests, the theory of evolution has been a more fruitful tool for studying life from the first cell forward.
I find it very difficult to believe that an eye could have evolved. On the other hand, while not being able to explain the first eye, the evidence of creatures adapting to their surroundings by growing over their eyes is a striking example of how significant evolutionary forces have been since that first eye.
I think it takes remarkable faith to believe that the first cell evolved from previous organisms. To suggest that all life came from a first cell or set of cells does not seem nearly as improbable as saying that the first cell developed from anything less than a cell.
June 21st, 2005 at 6:32 pm
Amy I do have some interest, but I don't think enough to go and buy and/or read something. I am interested for my own curiosity. We'll see. I think the premise they are trying to establish is correct. I believe evolution, though it has a great deal of support in describing a great deal of the world around us, does not provide the ultimate answers to the beginning of life. I think that the material-naturalistic theology that developed in the scientific world and is often taught entwined in evolutionary theory is irrationally limited, and I believe it is in societies best interests for those limits to be exposed.
June 21st, 2005 at 9:10 pm
“I think you are asking too much of the car metaphor, Tim. It's an illustration rather than an argument. If you refer back to his celular examples, you'll see that he is not refering to something designed, nor would the changes have to be designed for his point to carry.”
Bill, the point I am making is that for Orr's point to carry, the changes would have to be in something which was not the result of design. Otherwise, the question of design is merely pushed back one step: can non-essential parts become essential parts without modification by an intelligent agent? Orr's illustration, which he uses to support his argument, imports intelligent agency into the scenario, thus utilizing the very thing he wishes to say does not occur.
June 21st, 2005 at 9:38 pm
Did they ever mention anything specific?
June 22nd, 2005 at 10:23 am
No. I've never entered into conversation with anyone about it. I've never studied or really known the content of ID stuff. I was just hearing these folks gestalt opinions.
June 22nd, 2005 at 10:24 am
Granted. His illustration pushes back the design issue.
June 23rd, 2005 at 11:08 am
I wanted to add about Orr's article, that his tone is very measured throughout the article, then he suddenly calls ID junk science when the discussion he's had before it doesn't lead to that conclusion It might lead to the conclusion that ID isn't contributing to science, but not that it is junk science.
It's as iff Orr thinks his explanation leads to the belief of himself and his peers, but they don't follow.
June 23rd, 2005 at 11:45 am
Good point, Bill. I thought that was odd too. I think he feels like he has to make sure people don't think he believes it even though he's explaining it clearly and not disrepectfully.
This is encouraging because it means the conversation has moved to the point where people are beginning to hear the actual arguments even if they're still fairly suspicious.
June 25th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
Exactly. Ptolemy's geocentric model of the universe, with all of its epicycles and deferents, did a great job of predicting the positions of the planets at any particular moment. But for all its practical use, it wasn't a true picture of what the solar system looked like. Until its limits were exposed, and a heliocentric view of the universe was accepted, the true cause of the motion of the planets (gravity induced by the mass of the Sun) could not be discovered.
Just because evolution describes a lot of things well does not mean it is truth, and as you say, until its limits are exposed, society will never get any deeper to the true origins of life on Earth.
June 25th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
Laurie, I thought that Christians opposed to Evolution were all members of the flat-earth society and persecuted Galileo for daring to challenge the authority of the Word of God!