Intelligent Design, Part 1

There has been a lot of discussion recently on sites such as BoingBoing and Slashdot about the topic of Intelligent Design.

In a nutshell, Intelligent Design says that the theory of evolution does not explain the existence of lifeforms such as humans because they are too complex to have formed purely via the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. Therefore, there must be an intelligent designer that somehow interjects and influences the development of new species.

Most scientists believe in the theory of evolution and do not believe in intelligent design. And in most cases, people who believe in intelligent design believe that the designer is "God".

Although my background is pretty strong in the area of science, I must admit that I'm particularly interested in the debate because I originally supported the theory of intelligent design.

Why?

Because for many years I used to study at the University of Texas Health Science center and I kept learning about remarkable biological designs that were so incredible that I couldn't imagine them forming via evolution.   

One famous example is the Bombadier Beetle, which defends itself by firing a combination of chemicals that are mixed and aimed at the last second with incredible accuracy. I felt that the chances of such a mechanism forming via evolution were just too small. Over the years, I compiled a list of at least 10 other examples that were even more amazing, and would often describe them to my scientist friends whenever I was defending my viewpoint.

On the flip side, there are plenty of examples of designs in biology that don't make a whole lot of sense, such as the existence of left-over organs like the appendix.

Although I believed that there must have been some kind of designer that was interjecting itself into the process of evolution, I did not believe that this designer was a God. Instead, I thought it might be an alien species that somehow evolved using a different and more believeable mechanism than the one we're familiar with. Sounds weird? Well, I'm a logical person and if I didn't think that evolution could have produced complex lifeforms, then by process of elimination it had to be the work of another intelligence, whether it's an alien or a God.

The event that changed my way of thinking was when I started teaching Genetic Algorithms at the University of Texas at Dallas. I was teaching C++ at the time, and wanted to make the class more interesting by introducing topics that would be thought provoking and a good vehicle for utilizing object-oriented concepts.

Genetic algorithms solve problems by initially creating some random values for solutions, then selecting the values that get closer to the solution and discarding the others, and then generating more random values based on the previous selection. My explanation is a bit simplistic, but hopefully it conveys the idea that genetic algorithms solve problems by using the same approach as biological evolution.

As part of my preparation for teaching genetic algorithms, I found some great examples where computer programs supporting digital evolution produced incredible results in a relatively small number of generations. And this of course pales beside biological evolution which has had billions of years and trillions of variations to work with.

Seeing genetic algorithms in action gave me a much better appreciation for the power of evolution, and I decided at that point that it could indeed explain the full range of biological designs. I'm glad I ended up switching to this belief, because it is self-contained and doesn't rely on the existence of a third party.

One result of my experience in this area is that I think biology students that are learning the theory of evolution should be challenged with trying to explain some of the more complex biological designs. It's not easy, nor should it be. Good students should not believe something just because they read it in a book.

For example, how could a Bombadier beetle have evolved? What about the complex visual system? Showing students some examples of digital evolution through the use of genetic algorithms would allow students to see evolution occuring in real time and give them insight into how it really works.

Should Intelligent Design be mentioned in a Science class?

When science students are taught various modern theories, it's educational to describe the theories that preceded them and why they were displaced. After all, this is the heart of the scientific process. For example, 50 years before Newton introduced his theory of gravity, it was believed that the planets were held in place by an invisible shield. A teacher might ask: Why did people believe in an invisible shield? What were the weaknesses in this theory? Why did Newton not believe it? Why did Newton's work displace the earlier theory?

If I was a biology teacher, I'd paint a picture of the theories for life that were around before Darwin started his work, why they were believed, the problems with them, and the reason why evolution has displaced them.

The theory prior to evolution was basically Intelligent Design, in which the designer was generally believed to be God. So in presenting the history of theories for life, it's natural to talk about Intelligent Design as the leading theory of the day that was eventually displaced by the theory of evolution.

I've read in many places that Intelligent Design should not be taught or mentioned in a science class. I agree that it should not be taught as a serious modern contender to evolution, but I do think it should be mentioned for historical reasons as the earlier theory that was displaced.

And contrary to much of what I've read, it is perfectly possible to scientifically prove Intelligent Design; you simply have to find the designer and get them to demonstrate convincingly how it was all done!

Part 2 of this series is here.

Comments

[Tom Welsh]

The discovery of complex organic compounds, including many of the necessary precursors to cellular life, have been found by NASA in comet Tempel 1. The following article gives some details:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0908/p04s01-stss.html

Amusingly enough, it is from the Christian Science Monitor - although I believe those people are smart enough to see through ID.

It is gratifying to see the theories of people like Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe being vindicated after so much narrow-minded criticism.

http://www.cf.ac.uk/maths/wickramasinghe/chand1.html

[Francisco Gutierrez]

Maybe playing with genetic algorithms should be required in learning biology. I had a similar experience of biological enlightment when I played with GAs for the first time. I learned more about evolution via genetic algorithms than I did via biology classes.

I don't think that it is the place of biology teachers to talk about intelligent design because it is simply not science, nor could it ever be on philosophical grounds. Postulating an intelligent designer only pushes the explanation problem under the rug, and creates a bigger problem, where did the intelligent designer come from? Discussing intelligent design in the biology classroom would give that so-called "theory" more respectability in the eyes of the students than it deserves, and it would undermine the teaching of real science.

However, it would be a perfect topic in a philosophy, or philosophy of science course. There it could be looked at in the context of all explanations people have ever invented on how things happen, for example the caloric, the ether, lamarckian evolution, group selection in biology, etc.

[Patrick Calahan]

I understand and even sympathize with the complexity argument. My main complaint, though, is that I have never heard a convincing description of a metric for complexity.

If life is "too complex for evolution," how much complexity *could* be explained by evolution? Where is the threshold at which you need to pull in ID? How is complexity being measured in the first place?

Stephen Wolfram makes similarly questionable arguments about complex emergent behaviors. When asked why a behavior is complex (and therefore significant), he says "Well, just look at it! it looks pretty complex to me." (Almost a direct quote).

[Patrick Logan]

I don't care for dichotomies. For example...

"Because let's face it, if evolution can't explain it, then the Intelligent Design theory is correct and there must have been some kind of other force behind the scenes."

This is not an either/or situation. Maybe there are other theories or expansions on evolution that we have not discovered yet.

I am all for questioning scientific results. That *is* science. A problem with Intelligent Design is that it is indistinguishable from magic. If something cannot be explained without magic that does not imply there is no better explanation. Putting magic and science-as-we-know-it on the same level footing is not good science, and should not be taught as good science.

[Graham Glass]

Hi Patrick,

I'm going to update my blog entry to make my teaching suggestion a bit clearer.

Cheers,
Graham

[Harris Reynolds]

I always find these discussions interesting and couldn't resist a counter point available here:

http://harrisreynolds.net/blog/archives/2005/09/intelligent_des.html

Hope things are going well!

p.s. do trackbacks work for your blog?

[Graham Glass]

Hi Harris,

I think that trackbacks work, but I haven't tested them.

As far as the answer to the ultimate question goes - where did the universe come from - physicists are definitely trying to figure that one out. Assuming that there are some basic rules from which everything else derives, if the choice was between something super-low-level such as "there is a quantum froth" versus "there is a super-powerful mega-being", I think the principle of Occam's razor would choose the first option.

Cheers,
Graham

[Christopher St. John]

Karl Sims's block creatures are a fun way to introduce people to evolutionary computation:

http://www.biota.org/ksims/

Check at the bottom of the page for a link to an mpeg video, or google for "Karl Sims".

The first thing most people say on seeing the videos is "that can't possibly be right, he cheated". He didn't. After that, people say something like "ok, maybe he didn't cheat, but random chance alone can't have produced that behavior, there's more to it", and they're right, and that's where you hit them with DNA-as-computational-machinery and blow their mind with the realization that the world is a lot more complicated and wonderful than they thought it was.

[Taiwo]

Have you considered that evolution can be a part of, or can occur within, Intelligent Design?

Since your genetic algorithm can simulate an “evolution process”, why couldn’t another intelligent being (God) have designed our universe, parts of which evolve in an evolutionary process?

- Taiwo

[Dr Umesh R Bilagi]

link http://umeshbilagi.blogspot.com/2007/04/intelligent-design-vestigial-organs.html
Intelligent Design & Vestigial Organs
By
Dr Umesh R. Bilagi
Associate Prof of Medicine
KIMS Hubli
Karnataka
INDIA
[email protected]

http://umeshbilagi.blogspot.com/

Topic :-Vestigial organs not necessarily proof of evolution for Darwin

I would postulate that it is possible to have a vestigial organ
[ananatomical structure in organisms in a species, thought to have
lost its original function through evolution] without the process of
evolution. Let me illustrate this idea using an analogy drawn from
popular computer software.

Assuming, I have a reasonable amount of storage space on my computer
hard disk, if I first create an unformmated document using
Microsoft(MS) Word, and then a second MS Word document that I format
very rigorously, I do so because I consider MS Word software to be the
best option for my purposes, as opposed to using, say, the less
sophisticated Notepad software, where little formatting of documents
is possible.

Now, if you argue that there is a vestigial structure to the first MS
Word document (the capacity - in this case, unused - for
formatting)and that this only became functional in the second
document,ultimately concluding that the first document evolved from
the second document, you would be incorrect, since I am the creator of
both documents.

Similarly, I would argue that vestigial organs do not necessarily
confirm evolution; they only point to what tools - improvable overtime
- the creator used while making the species. This same principle is
seen even in electronic gadgets today.

Most probably, such an explanation did not occur to Darwin given that,
in his time, there were no common tools to carry out varied,
complex,seemingly disconnected jobs. So he concluded that unless a
creator planned to mislead us, vestigial organs should not have
existed

It is tendency of creators of to make some useful common tools, which
can be used to carry out multiple jobs (or to make machines). so by
virtue of this common tools (if tools get fitted into machines),
vestigenesity will come up.

Vestigial organs can be classified in to vertical & transverse ones

Vertical ones are like appendix which are inherited from ancestor to
next species

Transverse one are in which one sex has functional capacity & in
opposite sex it is vertiginous

Example
Vertiginous Male breast can be better explained tools of intelligent
design than Darwin evolution now look at male nipple which are
functional in female. Male & female have come much before mammals, so
presence of male nipple in mammals can be explained by theory of tools
of intelligent design better than Darwin evolution.

I want answer few common questions, I came across from this link
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Am4wlxSObR8tRjqRTfoyDtXsy6IX?qid=20070427010401AAZutMj

Why there is no perfect making from intelligent designer?
It is unwise jump to conclusion that intelligent designer has to make
things with perfection he makes things as per his wish, with his
requirement, (like, life for humans for 100years)

Why there are support systems (Immunity)in living beings? & it is
foolish have them.
Now regarding support system when we consider that we make good
intelligent soft ware programmes, there are viruses which can attack
them, for that we have (support system) antivirus Now don't call
software programmers foolish

Common embryo genesis of both sexes?
Male nipple points towards common embryo genesis i.e. common tools
which I am mentioning

Who created the creator?
Now, answer for creation of creator. It is like asking what was there
before big bang, Stephan Hawking will answer you that time began then
& there no time before this event or even if it was, it has no effect
on us. Answer for, who created creator, will come from birth of
universe.

[ID Boater]

I was googled here by ID, Theory of Evolution, and Object Oriented. I am surprised that the party who taught Genetic Algorithms does not mention the stunning relationship or similarity between OOAD programming and results, vs. the results of the Theory of Evolution and finally how that is linked to Intelligent Design.

A study of current genetics research, the various DNA patterns, including "re-use" of DNA code, show a remarkable similarity to Object Oriented Analysis and Design approaches. Subsequently, both ID and the TofE fit into the same design model, esp. if the DNA is founded in OOAD.

Finally, for those who poo-poo (scientific term for those who blindly accept TofE), run the following extrapolation. Number of base-pair in a human cell DNA (3 billion, give or take), x number of cells in a human (approx 100 trillion- wrong figure?, then please post a correction of the correct value).

Now, compare that computed total of a single human's DNA base pair to the current computer storage attached to all computers in the world today, PC's, servers, and mainframes. Stunningly, just to store a single human's base pair would require approximately 20,00 times more storage than exists in the world today.

I work in very large scale computers that routinely store trillions of bytes (terabytes) and sometimes thousands of trillion bytes (petabytes). The complexity of a single human DNA and systems dramatically exeeds that of all complex computers today.

So on that basis of complexity alone (the massive complexity of a single human), I find it baffling that well trained, but very narrowly so, scientists are opposed (very fearful of?) Intelligent Design. Probably the God thing turns them off. But on a scientific design basis, it is a challenging area worthy of serious review!