What is wrong with intelligent design?

  • Gregory W. Dawes
Original Paper


While a great deal of abuse has been directed at intelligent design theory (ID), its starting point is a fact about biological organisms that cries out for explanation, namely “specified complexity” (SC). Advocates of ID deploy three kind of argument from specified complexity to the existence of a designer: an eliminative argument, an inductive argument, and an inference to the best explanation. Only the first of these merits the abuse directed at it; the other two arguments are worthy of respect. If they fail, it is only because we have a better explanation of SC, namely Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection.


Intelligent design Design arguments Teleological arguments 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bartley, W. W. (1984). The retreat to commitment, (2nd ed., La Salle, IL: Open Court pp. 262–263).Google Scholar
  2. Behe, M. J. (1996). Darwin’s black box: The biochemical challenge to evolution. New York: The Free Press, pp. 198–199, p. 205.Google Scholar
  3. Coyne, J. (2005). The case against intelligent design: The faith that dare not speak its name—A review of Of Pandas and People by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon. The New Republic, 22 August 2005, retrieved 28 August 2005 from Scholar
  4. Darwin, C. (1968). The origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life, 1st ed. [1859] Pelican Classics Harmondsworth: Penguin (p. 219).Google Scholar
  5. Dawkins, R. (1986). The blind watchmaker. London: Penguin, 1988.Google Scholar
  6. Dembski W.A. (1998). The design inference: Eliminating chance through small probabilities, Cambridge Studies in probability, induction, and decision theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Dembski, W. A. (2002a). No free lunch: Why specified complexity cannot be purchased without intelligence Langham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield (p. 162).Google Scholar
  8. Dembski, W. A. (2002b). “Obsessively criticized but scarcely refuted: A response to Richard Wein”, retrieved on 28 August 2006 from Scholar
  9. Fitelson B., Stephens C., Sober E. (1999). How not to detect design: A review of Wiliam A. Dembski’s The design inference—Eliminating chance through small probabilities. Philosophy of Science 66, 473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Earman J. (1992). Bayes or bust? A critical examination of Bayesian confirmation theory. MIT Press, A Bradford Book Cambridge, MA, (p. 101)Google Scholar
  11. Elsberry, W. & Shallit, J. (2003). Information theory, evolutionary computation, and Dembski’s ‘complex specified information, pp. 25–31, retrieved on 28 August 2006 from Scholar
  12. Gishlick, A., Matze, N. & Elsberry, W. R. (2004). Meyer’s Hopeless Monster—A review of Stephen C. Meyer, The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117, 213–239, retrieved on 29 August 2006 from, Conclusion.Google Scholar
  13. Greenberg, D. (2005). Those bastards, we’ve got to cut them back—A review of The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney. London Review of Books, 27(18), 17, 22 September.Google Scholar
  14. Himma K.E. (2005). The application-conditions for design inferences: Why the design arguments need the help of other arguments for God’s existence. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 57, 1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kauffman S.A. (1993). The origins of order: self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford University Press, New York, NY (pp. 22–25)Google Scholar
  16. Kitcher P. (1996). Abusing science: The case against creationism. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, (p. 52)Google Scholar
  17. Lipton P. (1991). Inference to the best explanation. Philosophical Issues in Science London, Routledge, (pp. 59–60)Google Scholar
  18. Lycan, W. G. (1988). Judgement and justification, Cambridge Studies in Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 112 et passim.Google Scholar
  19. Meyer S.C. (2004). The return of the God hypothesis. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 11, 24–27Google Scholar
  20. Mill, J. S. (1999). Three Essays on Religion. [1874]. In J. M. Robson (Ed.), Collected works of John Stuart Mill Vol. 10 University of Toronto Press (p. 447).Google Scholar
  21. Meyer, S. C. (2004). The Cambrian information explosion: Evidence for intelligent design. In W. A. Dembski & M. Ruse (Ed.), Debating Design Cambridge University Press (p. 371).Google Scholar
  22. Pine, R. H. (2005). Intelligent design or ‘no model’ creationism: A total fraud and a scam why it can’t qualify as even a pseudoscience. Creation & Intelligent Design Watch hosted by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), retrieved 22 November 2005 from Scholar
  23. Popper, K. R. (2002). The logic of scientific discovery, [1959], Routledge Classics. London: Routledge, 2002, §31 (96), §35 (103).Google Scholar
  24. Saletan, W. (2005). The Brontosaurus: Monty Python’s flying creationism. Slate, posted Thursday, 27 October 2005; retrieved 28 August 2006 from Scholar
  25. Sober E. (1999). Testability. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 73, 47–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sober E. (2002). Intelligent design and probability reasoning. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 52, 65–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sober E. (2003). The design argument. In: Manson N.A. (eds). God and design: The teleological argument and modern science. Routledge, London, pp. 27–54Google Scholar
  28. Stenger, V. J. (2003). Messages from heaven. In Has science found god? Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, chap. 4.Google Scholar
  29. Swinburne R. (2004). The existence of god. 2nd ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford, p. 341Google Scholar
  30. van Till H.J. (1999). “Does ‘intelligent design’ have a chance? An essay review”. Zygon 34, 667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. van Till, H. J. (2002). E. Coli at the no free lunchroom: Bacterial flagella and Dembski’s case for intelligent design, 18, retrieved on 28 August 2006 from Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations