What is intelligent design (ID)? And is it the union of faith and science its proponents claim, or a Trojan Horse sneaking reconstituted “neocreationists” in through the back door, as claimed by its opponents?

Largely attributed to biochemist Michael Behe, the theory argues that when something can no longer be broken down beyond a point of “irreducible complexity”, it displays the presence, let’s say the hand, of ID. Behe uses the example of the basic mousetrap which, minus any one of its parts, can no longer function. Therefore, he contends, the basic mousetrap could not have “evolved” from simpler parts organizing for that purpose, but must instead be the result of ID.

Likewise, Behe claims there are living things whose smallest irreducible parts could not have arisen from evolutionary processes. While not an easy concept to grasp, most proponents are content with, “The universe is so vast and wondrous, and the world so perfectly designed to fit our needs, surely there is an intelligence at work here.”

Of course after ID has taken root in classrooms and boardrooms, the next step would be to assign that intelligence and name the designer. Behe and others make no bones about their motivation, and their acceptance of a Judeo-Christian God as the Intelligent Designer behind ID.

Proponents have at least two things going for them. First, after seeing a backlash in Kansas and elsewhere, creationists are regrouping behind perhaps the most unabashedly conservative presidential administration in recent memory. Second, ID has appeal as a seeming compromise, one promoted by real scientists with impressive letters after their names, making it very tempting to skittish politicians and school officials.

So what is the response to this latest attack on evolution, this attack on what, in an effort to reduce it to a cult of personality, is often referred to as “Darwinism”?

As even most ID’ers would admit, evolutionary theory has shed much light on the processes of living things. Still, our knowledge is incomplete. Like creationism, ID relies on this lack of knowledge, this doubt, for the dispersal of its seed. So its proponents suggest that evolution ceases to operate at the exact edge of our current knowledge, right at the threshold of doubt. But to quote Stephen Hawking, “It seems better to ... cut out all the features of the theory which cannot be observed."

And as Albert Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." Over time ID would have to be applied to a shrinking number of systems and organisms as the science and our understanding in these areas grows. It seems far likelier that evolutionary processes, while imperfectly understood, are still operating at these hidden scales.

But since it is not infallible, the argument continues, why not make a niche for other theories, ID for instance? But what if, before the cosmological flaws in Newtonian physics were resolved by Einstein, Sir Isaac’s discoveries and equations had been suppressed due to imperfections? How much might have been lost? While we should not discount the value of belief giving perspective to science, even Isaac Newton, closet alchemist himself, understood the dangers in imposing one upon the other.

Proponents may naturally select ID over creationism as their best hope for a religiously-based biology in schools. Likewise, the theory of evolution continues to evolve. There is now a growing realization that systems, living and not, can self-organize. Ilya Prigogine and others have observed chemical systems that restructure themselves into completely new forms under certain conditions, forms bearing little reducible trace of their past.

What if Behe’s smallest parts actually have organized, but for a different purpose than the one ultimately apparent? For example, ID’ERs might conclude that flight feathers represent an “irreducible complexity”. Could they conceive of a part having initially evolved for another purpose, warmth, and then reaching a point of transcendent emergence, i.e., the threshold of flight?

Self-organizing, emergent structures: the intelligence may lie within, and not require the hand of a Western God. On the other hand, to say that a system is at a point of “irreducible complexity” is to claim perfect knowledge of that system; in other words, to claim a God-like perspective. This, therefore, makes arguments for ID circular (if not ironic) and the theory unverifiable.

There will always be magic and mystery in the world; thank God for that. Intelligent design, however, appears to be just the latest flawed attempt at repackaging that mystery as science, to further a very earthly agenda.

Harv Teitelbaum lives in Evergreen, Colorado

###