Chapter One: Introduction

Dawkins' Admission That Science Can Accept A Legitimate Limited Design Investigation With Specific Materialistic Assumptions

Richard Dawkins is the leading defender today of evolution. He is the popular author of the recent book The God Delusion (2008).

Dawkins in a radio interview in 2007 says that life on earth may have been designed by creatures that evolved elsewhere. This interview is preserved on the Internet by NPR and available through YouTube. 1 He says this idea was pregnant all along within Darwininism because it says matter can evolve to create "consciousness," which in turn can be the designer of life as we know it on earth.

Dawkins was captured on video saying the same thing in Ben Stein's 2008 documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. In that movie, we can both hear and see Dawkins relay the same point. Seeing is believing. Dawkins says that it is actually possible that life on earth was designed by beings evolved on other planets. He agrees this is one possible legitimate avenue of investigating intelligent design. Dawkins only cries foul against anyone who uses the same evidence to prove this alien life fits the characteristics of God. Such is not an endeavor of science.

This is an amazing admission. Some evolutionists no doubt think Dawkins gave away the store. Some evolutionists might want to mock Dawkins as engrossing himself in an Alien Design Theory. No doubt evolutionists also fear Dawkins' admission will be used to allow Intelligent Design into the classroom, and thus people of faith can surreptiously use it to prove the existence of the dreaded being whose name begins with the letter G.

Yet, what Dawkins said was quite sensible. The discussion of design based upon an evolved-extraterrestrial intelligent being as your fundamental assumption is thoroughly scientific. The objective of the inquiry then becomes to investigate the true natural origin of something such as DNA without fear this will be construed as proving God's existence. A fairly accurate summary of Dawkins' interview with Stein is captured in this quote by an Intelligent Design (ID) think-tank:

Surprisingly, in a lengthy interview with Ben Stein in Expelled, Dawkins says that living things on the Earth could be actually (and not just apparently) designed - and that the design might be detectable. Dawkins thereby concedes the central claim of ID, though he insists that the designers - if there were any - must have been highly evolved space aliens, not God. 2

However, I would challenge one aspect of this quote. It is true that Dawkins does concede the central claim of ID, but with an important caveat. If the discussion of intelligent design is used to prove the existence of a being who had no material origin, such as God, then the discussion is outside science because science can only investigate material causes. The use of science to prove such a being as G-d exists is outside the purview of Science. This would be a misuse of Dawkins' admission in a science classroom.

However, what Dawkins does permit which should please ID, if it would but change its objectives somewhat, is that such discussions about the G-word could take place outside Science. For example, the notion of G-d could be entertained and discussed by experts in Metaphysics or Natural History. They could debate whether this Alien Intelligence is singular, eternal, non-materialistic or the opposite. But it is clearly not possible in Science to prove the existence of a non-material being without causation in our realm. Hence, ID can never be solely scientific in its propositions if the objective is to prove the existence of God as classically defined.

On the other hand, ID claims it does not seek to prove the existence of God. However, the judge in Pennsylvania was not convinced in the Dover case. He did not think ID had divorced itself from such a religious agenda. The judge deemed the teaching of ID in the classroom as inherently religious.

Indeed, many ID theorists do seek to argue that Science is too narrowly defined to omit any discussion of intelligent design. Yet, in context, it is clear they never were arguing to prove an Alien Intelligence Theory, as Dawkins concedes is a worthy avenue of Science They were evidently upset that the proof of God's existence was being ignored. This is what convinced the judge in Dover that ID had a religious agenda, and its teaching was a surreptitious means to impose religious belief on children in violation of the First Amendment.

Hence, truly, if ID wants to be accepted in Science, it must take Dawkins at his word and agree to his appropriate limitations. If we solely opined about an alien intelligence, then we are within Science. Any other kind of discussion about G-d belongs in metaphysics or natural history courses, and not in a Science classroom.

However, ID believes that by being vague on what is the Intelligence that designed a particular phenomenon, it cannot be accused of being religious. This is not true. Being vague is what opens the door to the student to imagine Science can posit a non-material conscious being as a cause (i.e., God), and that His existence can be just as scientific as a theorem that assumes an alien which evolved on another planet did so. Yet, science cannot be so vague, and hope to be called Science. It must specify a materialist origin for intelligence as its assumption or it has lost its scientific bearings.

Thus, now that the door has finally been opened by the leading evolutionist -- Dawkins, we now can pass through it in a responsible manner. We can still be good scientists even if our faith is driving our desire to find intelligent design. We must restate our position as seeking to prove an Alien Intelligence, not Intelligent Design. In this process, we can develop scientific evidence that is useful in a course on Metaphysics or Natural History to determine whether this Alien Intelligence is personal, eternal, all-powerful, etc., or the opposite. But to use Science in a Science classroom to prove directly or indirectly (by vagueness) a being whose causation/origin cannot ever be explained by Science is to misuse Science.

Hence, in light of Dawkins' Alien Intelligence Theory, we can see that the debate is not really about design. All evolutionists know in their heart they are looking at design in DNA. They can call it apparent design, a marvel of trial-and-error, or whatever pleases them which keeps out the idea of the G-word in science. But now that Dawkins has opened everyone's mind to posit design as the product of consciousness of a material evolved origin, we can now formulate a true theorem to explore the question. It is no longer out of bounds. So what is the theorem that proves an Alien Intelligence?

The Right Theorem to Prove Intelligent Causation

One can prove relevant actual design by an Intelligence beyond this world in the ancient past by proof of an ingenious design.

Behe came close to suggesting the right theorem of proof. He was trying to explain that the flagella of a bacteria proves intelligent design. However, Behe came about this from the premises of evolution. He thought the idea of simultaneous evolution of multiple interworking parts begged credibility, and hence it was intelligently designed. But this overlooked (or obscured) the more important fact of the amazing design and engineering skill in the various parts of the flagella. Demski and others like him focus on high levels of improbability to prove intelligent design along with specificity of information-rich biological entities. They believe it can be mathematically quantified and determined.

But the real proof of intelligent design is, and always will be, ingenious design. No amount of statistics or powers-of-trial-and-error can ever cross such a barrier. If we find something that exists in nature which requires ingenuity to exist, then we have ruled out it was the product of non-conscious processes, e.g., evolution. If it takes a Ph.D. to reverse engineer the irridiscence of a butterfly, or it would take several Craig computers to fold a single protein in a living cell in a trillion years (which your body does in under a second for thousands of proteins), then we are talking about an ingeniousness well beyond the power of trial-and-error.

On the other hand, the evidence in this book about ingenious design will no doubt provide information to help answer in Metaphysics whether the designer is God or some Alien life from another planet. But it is beyond the purpose of this book to venture into such a metaphysical discussion. This book is all about Science.

Indeed, this book intends to stay within the classic definition of Science. It plans to take advantage of the breakthrough that Dawkins' admission provides. We can now engage in a constructive sensible scientific investigation into the quality of design in the universe, life, etc.

Disproofs of God Which Dawkins Offers Become Irrelevant

What this also means is that all of Dawkins' disproofs of intelligent design based on imperfections in nature fall away as irrelevant. What Dawkins was attacking was the religious assumption that was unexpressed but always present in the first intelligent design movement. Now, if we pass into the second phase, as I suggest, which expressly divests itself from any religious agendas and replaces them with solely scientific agendas, Dawkins' comments become irrelevant.

Thus, if we make this transformation, it becomes insignificant whether the Panda's thumb is, in Dawkins' view, defective. In a Science classroom, we are not trying to determine anything about the characteristics of the Intelligence on another world that would answer whether it is or is not G-d as classically defined. If the Panda's thumb is poorly designed, Dawkins is hoping to prove the designer could not be G-d by classic definition. However, that debate on the significance of the Panda's thumb belongs outside Science. It involves the metaphysical question on the nature of the designer. What we want to know in Science on this topic is whether there are parts of the Panda that require an ingenious designer, i.e., there are parts which could not conceivably be the product of trial-and-error.

Hence, our response to Dawkins must now be wiser in the transformation I propose. We will not take the bait of Dawkins' argument any longer. Instead, we will recognize his arguments about the Panda's thumb belong in the Metaphysics classroom. In that classroom, we will devise objective theorems on how to prove whether this alien intelligence which can now be proven and recognized in Science fits or does not fit the classic qualities of G-d. Any alleged imperfection of some designs in nature belongs to metaphysics. Science only cares whether certain designs match the level of what we call ingenious, and hence are the hand of an Intelligence not of this world.

Of Miracles and Other Quotes On the Defiance of Physics

One of the dead giveaways that Intelligent Design had a religious agenda was how it accepted evolutionists' leaps into pro-G-d statements. For example, Crick says that given the extraordinary improbabilities of an evolutionary origin of the DNA code and life itself, it almost appears life is a "miracle." The ID person quotes Crick and then leaves it there. The ID person wants the reader to think G-d did it. Crick's words are treated as a glorious admission. Then the ID writer exploits the quote to its height. However, the use of the quote thereby crosses the boundaries of Science into Metaphysics.

What do we do with such quotes in a revised ID movement that focuses on proof of Ingenious Design by an Alien Intelligence?

We must confess in such a quote that a metaphysical aspect is inter-twined with a scientific aspect. We draw out the science, and post-pone the metaphysical. We scrupulously remind our reader that the objective here is to prove whether an alien intelligence which evolved in some other part of existence consciously designed the natural phenomenon at issue. That's Science. We must address quotes such as the one from Crick carefully. We must tell the reader that the quote means a discovery of ingenious design is under discussion.

What Crick did was make a leap in logic, and call it a miracle which in popular connotation means a divine being did it. This was before Dawkins gave anyone a scientific way to speak about such phenomena. What Crick is recognizing is that life represents an amazing set of improbabilities and it appears virtually self-evident that it was a miracle, but whether such a marvel of engineering and encoding implies a divinity should no longer be the point of our quotation.

Instead, to be scrupulous, we must tell the reader that there is no basis in Science as defined to leap to the conclusion that because it was a miracle in one sense that we should say science is studying God's miracles. Only metaphysics can posit such a being's existence as classically defined, and hope to prove his existence by appropriate theorems. The quote from Crick is still useful, but we must keep the discussion to purely scientific questions. The caveats must be given each time so that the discussion is maintained as rigidly scientific.

This transformation of the Intelligent Design movement into a movement called Ingenious Design by an Alien Intelligence (IDAI) movement must be honest. When I discuss this with Christians, they hesitate. They do not want to engage in the discussion if it means talking about an alien intelligence. But this is only due to religious presupposition. They only want to discuss and prove a personal G-d. But this new definition of the endeavor based on Dawkins' admission troubles that agenda. The Judge in the Dover case was right.

However, we as a community of Christians can only prove the judge wrong by changing our Scientific agenda into a purely Scientific Agenda, and then by placing our secondary agenda inside of a Metaphysics or Natural History classroom.

Once that transformation is made, Ingenious Design can enter the classroom as a scientific discussion. I share as much hope that this will lead to a metaphysical discussion of whether such intelligence is divine or not. But I cannot let my biases influence what I define as Science. If I do so, I am merely trying to take what is a Metaphysical discussion and label it as Science so I can elevate the credibility of my belief in G-d. But if I truly respect G-d, I must approach the proof using proper stages of argument.

This Means We Are Taking Chances

One of the other reasons we do not want to do this is because there is a risk in such an endeavor. It may turn out that in Metaphysics that the theorems will prove an Intelligence unlike what we presuppose matches the classical definition of G-d. At this point, I don't know. Science that proves Ingenious Design in this book has not yet given me the answer. None of us have yet systematically studied the evidence for Ingenious Design in the context of metaphysical theorems. Thus, we don't know yet what kind of designer such analysis will prove.

Of course, I am excited and hopeful that the scientific evidence of ingenious design will prove what I imagine is the classical definition of G-d. But there is a risk that it will not prove that, and I will be disappointed.

Yet, regardless, not knowing how this will end does not mean I should not make a beginning. In this book, I will endeavor to provide the proof that Metaphysics will likely utilize later to assess the meaning of the proofs of Ingenious Designs from nature. They do tell alot. We will see the driving ideas behind certain patterns in natural history which will later no doubt be useful in determining what kind of Intelligence made this universe and life.

Concluding Remarks

Thus, if you love Science, I trust you will love this book. If you love God, this book can raise your hopes that God's existence and His claims on our life will be accepted by everyone once Metaphysical theorems are applied to this evidence. I cannot promise this is the outcome. Proof for the existence of G-d is not the purpose of this book. But it may just turn out by dividing the stages in argument as rigidly as I have done, we will finally break the log-jam, and thus allow people to come to faith through science in stage two. In that stage, we will examine the same scientific facts using Metaphysical or Natural History analysis to prove the nature of the ingenious designer. Hence, I pray this book will richly bless each one of you, regardless of your current faith or non-faith. Indeed, the marvels of nature are truly more marvelous than any puny effort of man.

1. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNu8F01BD9k&feature=related (Richard Dawkins on "Fresh Air," WHYY on March 28, 2007.) You can listen to the full program at www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyld=9180871.

2. Jonathan Wells, "Is the "Science" of Richard Dawkins Science Fiction?, (Discovery Institute, April 21, 2008), at http://www.discovery.org/a/4809 (accessed 6/14/08).