The Design Inference
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Author | William Dembski |
| Country | United States of America |
| Language | English |
| Subject(s) | Intelligent Design |
| Genre(s) | Religion |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| Publication date | September 13, 1998 |
| Media type | Hardcover, Paperback |
| ISBN | 0521623871 |
| OCLC Number | 38551103 |
| Dewey Decimal | 001.4/34 21 |
| LC Classification | QA279 .D455 1998 |
| Followed by | Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology |
The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities is a controversial 1998 book by the American mathematician, philosopher and theologian William Dembski. In it, Dembski sets out to establish a mechanism through which one could infer scientific evidence of intelligent design (ID) in nature using what he calls an "explanatory filter". The scientific community[1] including the The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[2] views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudoscience[3] or junk science. [4]
Contents |
[edit] Overview
In the book Dembski introduces what he calls an "explanatory filter"; a method by which chance is ruled out when a highly improbable event conforms to a discernible pattern which is given independently of the event itself. This 'pattern' is Dembski's concept of specified complexity, which is widely regarded as mathematically unsound. The filter states that if the thing being examined cannot be explained by a law, and it is too statistically unlikely to be explained by chance, then it must be attributed to design.
Dembski claims his concept is useful to those concerned with detecting design, forensic scientists, detectives, insurance fraud investigators, cryptographers, and SETI investigators, and theologians and others who argue for the fine–tuning of the universe and the Anthropic Principle. This assertion is disputed by scientists from the SETI Institute and other fields, who state that these fields do not find application for Dembski's explanatory filter and the related concept of specified complexity, but rather upon more prosaic methods and (in the case of SETI) a search for artificial simplicity.[5][6]
Dembski asserts that life itself is such a highly improbable event, conforming to a discernible pattern, and so serves as evidence in-and-of-itself of intelligent design.
In 2000, biologist Massimo Pigliucci criticized The Design Inference in BioScience writing, "Too bad he missed the solution to this riddle, which has been proposed several times during the last few centuries, most prominently (and in various fashions) by Hume (1779), Darwin (1859), and Jacques Monod (1971). According to these thinkers, if a given phenomenon occurs with low probability and also conforms to a pre-specified pattern, then there are two possible conclusions: intelligent design (this concept is synonymous with human intervention) or necessity, which can be caused by a nonrandom, deterministic force such as natural selection."[7]
[edit] Peer review controversy
The book was published by the Cambridge University Press as part of the monograph series Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory. In 2003 Dembski claimed it was one of "a few recent peer-reviewed publications supporting intelligent design in biology", arguing that it gives legitimacy to intelligent design.[8] The Discovery Institute, where Dembski serves as a fellow, continues to cite The Design Inference as a "Peer-Reviewed Scientific Books Supportive of Intelligent Design",[9] but this characterization of The Design Inference as a peer-reviewed scientific book has been dismissed by critics of intelligent design.
Despite the Institute's claim that work actually providing specific and detailed evidence for intelligent design has been published in scientific journals, one of the primary criticisms of the intelligent design movement is that they have failed to produce research papers supporting their position which appear in peer reviewed scientific journals.[10] Notably, in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in December 2005, United States District Judge John E. Jones III in his ruling stated "A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory." . . . "peer review involves scientists submitting a manuscript to a scientific journal in the field, [and] journal editors soliciting critical reviews from other experts in the field" . . . "evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications."[10]
Biology being the field in which intelligent design proponents make their claims, critics of ID (who include the vast majority of the scientific community) point out that The Design Inference was reviewed by philosophers not biologists, and is limited in its scope to philosophy not biology. However, the book claims that Dembski's criteria for detecting design are universal criteria, and therefore subsumes all fields of knowledge, explicitly including biology (as well as computer and information technology, among other fields). Although The Design Inference cites arguments in the evolution-creation controversy as one of the fields needing the type of theory it develops, the book itself does not give any substantive application of the theory in this area.
The Design Inference is specifically mentioned in the Wedge strategy as an example of accomplishing one of the intelligent design movement's five year goals of "Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion). Described as "offers a powerful alternative [to Darwinism]," the book is touted as being "published by major secular university publishers."[11]
Pigliucci wrote "Unfortunately, Cambridge University Press has offered a respectable platform for Dembski to mount his attack on "materialist science"--which, of course, includes evolution. My hope is that scientists will not dismiss this book as just another craze originating in the intellectual backwaters of America. Neocreationism should be a call to arms for the science community. The battle is already raging, and scientists and educators are still not sure if they should even bother paying attention."[7]
[edit] References
- ^ See: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. The Discovery Institute's Dissent From Darwin Petition has been signed by about 500 scientists. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism.
- ^ National Academy of Sciences, 1999 Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition
- ^ National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science
- ^ "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design’s arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't. Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.
- ^ SETI and Intelligent Design, Seth Shostak, SETI Institute 01 December 2005
- ^ Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and Dembski's "Complex Specified Information", Wesley R. Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit, TalkReason
- ^ a b Pigliucci, Massimo (50(1):79-81, 2000). "Chance, Necessity, and the War against Science: Review of The Design Inference". BioScience. http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1641%2F0006-3568%282000%29050%5B0079%3ACNATWA%5D2.3.CO%3B2. Retrieved 2008-07-17.
- ^ Intelligent Design and Peer Review, A Response to Eugenie Scott and the NCSE, William Dembski, Center for Science and Culture
- ^ Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated), Discovery Institute
- ^ a b Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science, p87
- ^ Wedge document
[edit] External links
- The Design Inference Dembski's website
- How Not to Detect Design (pdf file) by Branden Fitelson, Christopher Stephens and Elliott Sober.
- The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance by John S. Wilkins and Wesley R. Elsberry.
- Claim CI110.4: Intelligent design in biology has been supported by several peer-reviewed journals and books
- Claim CI110: Complex Specified information indicates design
