Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Latter-day Saint
“The Design Inference” (Part 3)

“The Design Inference” (Part 3)

Last updated on: September 20, 2020 at 10:39 pm by Dan Peterson

“The Design Inference” (Part 3) 2020-09-20T22:39:43-06:00 Dan Peterson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

It’s scarcely coincidental that, if you scramble my name, “Dan,” you get “DNA.” I’m absolutely saturated with the stuff. (Wikimedia Commons public domain image)

Continued:

According to William Dembski, while both contingency and complexity are required for the inference of design to kick in, neither contingency nor complexity nor even a combination of the two is sufficient to fully justify such an inference. Both must be present. along with what Dembski calls specificity or specification.

If an object or an event is to be properly described as “designed,” he says, it must exhibit a pattern that is independent of mere improbability. Another way of putting this would be to say that the pattern of improbable and contingent factors in the event or object must be specified ahead of time, not merely fabricated after the fact. If, for example, you were to randomly throw a dart at the side of a barn, the dart would definitely land somewhere. And its specific landing place would be, in a sense, improbable. After all, you had the entire barn wall in front of you, and the dart could have landed at virtually any place on that wall. So any specific place where it actually hit would be just one of many possible landing places. It would be random. But if, then, after your dart was already firmly stuck in the barn wall, you were to draw a circle around it and to begin to boast about your impressive dart-throwing prowess, given that you hit that particular place out of many possible others, that would be an after-the-fact fabrication. Only if you had told us in advance that you were going to hit, say, the apostrophe in the faded sign on the barn wall for Professor Brown’s Famous Elixir — and only after you had actually hit it — would you be in any position to boast. This would suggest real skill, and not mere luck.

The purpose of Dr. Dembki’s “design filter” is to provide a considered and rigorous method for distinguishing instances of what he calls “specified complexity” from the products of the mere interaction of chance and necessity. Specified complexity, he argues, is an indicator of the involvement, in the emergence of a given event or object, of intelligence.

So far, so good. So far, perhaps, not even very controversial. Where the (fierce) controversy ensues is when Dr. Dembski proposes to apply his “design filter” to objects or events in the natural world — to the macrocosm or universe at large and on the microcosmic level of the biological cell and the information content that it contains. To some, it appears, the very thought of doing so is profoundly upsetting.

In outline, Dr. Dembski’s application of the “design filter” goes as follows in a case where a designed object or event is successfully identified:

X is either designed, or the result of random chance, or the result of necessity (natural law), or the result of a combination of chance and necessity.
X is not the result of chance or necessity or a combination of the two.
Therefore, X is the result of design.

One of the examples of design that I gave in the first installment of this little mini-series was Gutzon Borglum’s famous array of sculpted presidential faces on Mount Rushmore, in South Dakota. Natural laws and random chance clearly explain Mount Rushmore itself. But the faces of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt that are carved into it cannot reasonably be explained as natural occurrences because of (1) their contingency, (2) their complexity, and (3) their independently-specified pattern — which is to say, the obvious fact that they were intended beforehand to depict four presidents of the United States of America. The sculptures on Mount Rushmore are, beyond reasonable dispute, products of intelligent design. And we would recognize this even if we were to stumble across them for the first time, seeing them from a sudden clearing in the trees and knowing nothing of either Gutzon Borglum or the history of the American presidency.

To be continued.

Uncategorized

Ancient Scripture

appearance of design

Brigham Young University

Department of Ancient Scripture

Previous Post

September 16, 2020

Revision 5.3 "Islamic Law" (B)

Next Post

September 16, 2020 "Watch the 'Tracing Ancient Threads in the Book of Moses' Conference This Weekend"

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 March 2014 August 2013 February 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What did King Nebuchadnezzar order everyone to worship?

Select your answer to see how you score.

A lion A golden statue The sun His crown