Intelligent design

Discovery Institute used banners based on the " Creation of Adam ." They were later replaced by less religious images. ^[9]

Leading representatives of the movement of Intelligent Design, working in the non-profit public organization Discovery Institute , consider it as a scientific theory ^[10] , according to which certain signs of the universe and life are best explained by a reasonable root cause and could not arise as a result of natural processes without conscious control. They believe that with the help of complexity criteria it is possible to prove the bindingness of the previous reasonable impact, as is done with objects created by man for some purpose.

Inexcusable complexity

The term “irreducible complexity” was introduced by biochemist Michael J. Behe in Darwin's Black Box (1996), although the phenomenon itself was already described in 1993 in the second edition of his book “Of Pandas and People ” ^[11] . Bihi defines “inexcusable complexity” as

A single system, composed of several parts well suited to each other so that it contributes to the fulfillment of the main function of the system. Moreover, the removal of one of the parts causes the system to stop functioning ^[12]

Original text

single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning

Behe uses a mousetrap to illustrate his concept. A mousetrap consists of several parts. Removing any of them will lead to malfunctioning of the mousetrap. Proponents of the concept of intelligent design argue that natural selection could not create inexcusably complex systems, since they only function if all the components are present. According to Biha, such systems are the bacterial flagella of E. coli , the cascade of blood coagulation , eyelashes, and the acquired immunity system ^[13] .

Certain difficulty

Within the concept of intelligent design, the concept of “defined complexity” ( English specified complexity ) was developed by the mathematician, philosopher and theologian William Dembski ( English William Dembski ). According to Dembsky, when a certain object has a certain level of complexity, it can be shown that it was created by a rational creator, and did not arise during natural processes. He explains the following example: the letter of the alphabet is defined (makes sense), but not complicated, a sentence from a random set of letters is difficult, but not defined (does not make sense), Shakespeare’s sonnet is complex and defined. The same principle can be applied, in his opinion, to biological objects, especially to DNA sequences . Dembsky believes that those that have a “certain complexity” include those systems whose probability of occurrence is naturally lower than 1:10 ¹⁵⁰ .

Fine tune the universe

Proponents of the concept of intelligent design believe that only existing fundamental physical constants determine the existence of life. If they were even a little different, then life would be impossible. In their opinion, a “reasonable design engineer” is needed, which ensured the “tuning” of these constants ^[14] .

In the vast majority of American scientific organizations, the concept of rational design does not find recognition as a scientific theory and is considered as pseudoscience ^[6] . As experts at the American Academy of Sciences note, Intelligent Design and other allegations of a supernatural contribution to the origin of life cannot be verified by scientific experiments , unable to make any predictions and do not offer new hypotheses . ^[7]

Strong scientific criticism is also evoked by certain provisions of the proponents of the concept of “reasonable design”.

Criticism of the concept of “inexcusable complexity”

The concept of inexcusable complexity assumes that all necessary parts of the system were always necessary, and therefore could not be added sequentially, but this is not so ^{[15] [16]} . In the course of evolution, what at first was simply beneficial, later with the change of other parts may become necessary. In addition, during evolution, various parts of the system may change, acquire other functions, or completely lose their functions and be removed from the system. As an example, scaffolding supporting the “inexcusably complex building” is cited until it can stand on its own. In particular, the main example of an inexcusably complex system, the bacterial flagellum, is not such as was proved in the course of studying its evolution , and has a common predecessor with the secretory system of type III consisting of 10 proteins homologous to those present in the bacterial flagellum ^[17] . Bihi himself admitted that his argument against Darwinism is not complete logical evidence. ^[18] The Kitsmiller v. Dover School District trial found that the concept of inexcusable complexity was refuted by the scientific community. ^[19]

Criticism of the concept of "certain complexity"

The concept of William Dembsky aroused very widespread criticism of the scientific, in particular mathematical, community ^{[20] [21] [22]} . It is an argumentum ad ignorantiam and cannot be regarded as a scientific theory ^{[23] [24]} . Richard Dawkins believes that the concept of "intelligent designer" who created complex systems only postpones the solution to the problem of complex systems. Since the “intelligent designer”, as Dawkins says, must be complex itself, its occurrence from the position of “intelligent design” is extremely unlikely ^[25] .

Criticism of the “fine-tuning the universe” argument

Physicist and astronomer Viktor Stanger , as well as other scientists, note that the principle of fine tuning the Universe in the understanding of the proponents of the “rational design” is essentially a tautology . On the other hand, this argument of the supporters of “intelligent design” is also a kind of argumentum ad ignorantiam and is based on the unwillingness to imagine other universes with other forms of life ^{[26] [27] [28]} .

Criticism of the concept of "intelligent design" in relation to complex systems created by man

Adherents of the concept of intelligent design take it for granted that complex objects and systems created by man are the product of intelligent design.

In fact, it is easy to show that such complex objects as watches, cars, computers, airplanes, etc., are not the product of the rational design of an individual person or even a group of people, but appeared in the process of a long evolution . There is no man who invented a watch and made it what it is today. As the first hours, you can consider a stick stuck in the ground, which cast a shadow - a primitive sundial. From such watches to modern mechanical or electronic watches, a long chain of changes, improvements, enhancements, inventions and discoveries passes. Not even a very advanced scientist of antiquity, for example, such as Archimedes , could create a watch of the 21st century using a “smart design”: Archimedes could not have a “smart design” of electronic clocks.

Similar reasoning can be given for a computer, an airplane, and other complex things. Thus, the concept of “smart design” / “smart design” is already erroneous in relation to complex systems whose history is well known to people. On the contrary, a comparison of the process of the emergence of living organisms and artificial systems speaks in favor of the theory of evolution, since each object created by man appeared as a result of an extremely long chain of trial and error, lasting hundreds, and sometimes thousands of years.

Muslim countries

In Muslim countries, creationism has strong government support. Anti-evolutionary ideas prevail among theologians and scholars ^[29] . Muslim creationists are in partnership with the Institute for Creation Research , many of whose ideas, including the theory of “smart design,” they used for their own purposes. The concept of “smart design” is especially popular in Turkey ^[30] , books on “smart design” are translated into Turkish . In 2007, a conference dedicated to this concept found support from local authorities ^[29] .

Australia

Former Federal Minister of Education Brendan Nelson raised the question of the possibility of teaching “smart design” in the framework of science, but after a public protest, he admitted his wrong ^[31] .

USA

Many schools, especially in the United States Bible Belt , have accepted the concept of “smart design” into their curriculum at the request of their parents. In 2005, the Kitsmiller v. Dover School District lawsuit ruled that the directive to teach “smart design” as part of natural science subjects as an alternative to evolutionary theory contradicts the First Amendment to the US Constitution . The basis of this decision was the conclusion that the "Intelligent Design" is not a scientific theory and has a religious nature ^[32] .

Europe

In 2007, the Committee on Culture, Science and Education of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe issued a resolution “ The danger of creationism in education ” ^[33] . In particular, it states:

The idea of ​​“smart design,” which is the latest and most sophisticated version of creationism, does not completely deny evolution. The doctrine of "intelligent design", if presented more subtly, is trying to portray its approach as scientific, which, in fact, is the danger ...
The Council of Europe draws attention to the importance of teaching culture and religion. In the name of freedom of speech and personal beliefs, creationist ideas, like any other theological postulates, could be presented as an addition to cultural and religious education, but they cannot claim to be recognized as scientific ^[34] .

- PACE Resolution No. 1580. The danger of creationism in education.

• Creationism
• Reasonable fall is a parody of the concept of “rational design”
• " Icons of evolution "
• Zoo hypothesis
• Pilyucci, Massimo

• Creationism / Rezvykh P.V. , Kolchinsky E.I. (Creationism in Biology) // Congo - Baptism. - M .: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 2010. - P. 661. - ( Great Russian Encyclopedia : [in 35 vols.] / Ch. Ed. Yu. S. Osipov ; 2004—2017, vol. 15). - ISBN 978-5-85270-346-0 .
• Ronald Numbers. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. - Cambridge: Harvard University Press , 2006 .-- 624 p. - ISBN 0674023390 .
• Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism / ed. Matt Young, Taner Edis. - Rutgers University Press , 2004 .-- 238 p. - ISBN 0-8135-3433-X .
• Robert T. Pennock. Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics: Philosophical, Theological & Scientific Perspectives. - Cambridge: MIT Press , 2001. - 805 p. - ISBN 0-262-16204-0 .

• Official website of the Discovery Institute

Criticism

• Mark Perakh. Intelligent design or blind chance? The clash of two worldviews
• Richard Dawkins , Jerry Coyne. "One of the points of view is simply incorrect ..."