2.1 AIMS OF THE STUDY
The object of the study is to offer a comprehensible evaluation of William A. Dembski’s theory of intelligent design, as well as to assess its reliability and implications. More precise research questions are:
1) According to Dembski’s theory, how can it be inferred that an object is designed?
2) Is Dembski’s theory a reliable method of detecting design?
3) If there are objects that have been designed—in the sense of Dembski’s theory—
what kind of conclusions should be drawn from this? Especially, if a biological object can be inferred to be designed, what are the consequences, first, for sci-ence and, second, for philosophy and theology?
4) What is the relationship between science, philosophy, and theology in Dembski’s theory?
Political and societal aspects of the theory of intelligent design mostly fall outside the scope of this study—questions such as whether intelligent design should be taught in schools or not, and the relationship between evangelical conservatism and intelligent design. These issues have already been covered widely by other authors.31 Moreover, these questions are more or less confined to the North American context and would require a more comprehensive analysis of the underlying political and intellectual landscape than the current study permits.32 Therefore, I find it reasonable to concen-trate on the actual design arguments set forth by proponents of intelligent design.33
To be precise, my aim is not to provide an analysis of the argumentation of the entire Intelligent Design movement. The focus is on Dembski. Of course, whenever necessary, the perspective includes other thinkers. Focusing solely on Dembski is a justified choice, for two reasons. First, Intelligent Design is not a homogenous move-ment but rather an attempt to unite a somewhat diverse group of people who share the belief that some features of the universe imply the existence of a supernatural
31 See, e.g., Campbell & Meyer 2003; Renka 2005; Forrest 2001; Forrest & Gross 2005. See also note 139.
32 Requests for including the teaching of intelligent design in the school curriculum have also been pre-sented—to a much more modest extent, however—in other countries (BBC News 2006; Deutsche Welle 2005; Wroe 2005).
33 Another topic that is not discussed in this study is the problem of evil. Some commentators have argued that the apparent bad design in nature constitutes a powerful argument against the existence of an almighty, benevolent God—with whom the “Intelligent Designer” is often identified. However, first, because the problem of evil does not pertain specifically to intelligent design (or its Christian proponents) but chal-lenges all Christian theology and, second, because I do not view the “bad design” argument as very strong in the first place (I find it difficult to define what would be “bad” design and what would not), the subject is omitted from this study. Moreover, the problem of evil is irrelevant to the actual formal argument pro-posed by Dembski, which does not depend on the goodness or badness of the designer. I have analysed Dembski’s understanding of the problem of evil in an article not included in this thesis (Loikkanen 2015).
designer.34 Therefore, treating Intelligent Design as a monolith might lead to gener-alizations, which could blur the difference between different members of the move-ment and could even be unfair to some. Second, although Dembski’s status as one of the leading promoters of the idea of intelligent design is undisputable, no academic study dealing exclusively with his thinking has been published previously. With this doctoral thesis, my aim is to fill that gap in the research.
2.2 THE RESEARCH ARTICLES
Answers to the above research questions are presented in four articles published in international academic journals between 2015 and 2018 (and supplemented in Chap-ter 5). The articles progress from examining the fundamentals of Dembski’s theory to analysing its connections with science, philosophy, and theology, and finally to an overall assessment of Dembski’s project. In Article I (William A. Dembski’s Argument for Detecting Design through Specified Complexity), the basic structure of Dembski’s argu-ment for detecting design is presented. The logic of the arguargu-ment is described in detail (research question 1) and scrutinised carefully, revealing various problems relating to the theory (research question 2).
A slightly different perspective is taken in Article II (Is God an Information Input-ter? Complex Specified Information as Evidence of Divine Action). There, an overview of Dembski’s theory of design detection is offered from the point of view of informa-tion theory (research quesinforma-tion 1). It is shown that this approach also entails serious difficulties (research question 2). Furthermore, the possibility of applying Dembski’s theory to biology is examined and its implications for the methodology of science are addressed (research question 3).
A more multifaceted—and this way, hopefully, a more complete—picture of Dembski’s theory of intelligent design is constructed in Article III (Christianity and In-telligent Design. A Multidimensional Approach35). The scientific dimension of Dembski’s theory is put into a wider context when its philosophical and theological implications are explicated (research question 3). In consequence, it becomes clear why scientific credibility is crucial to all aspects of Dembski’s theory. The connection between intel-ligent design and Christianity is also considered (research question 4).
In Article IV (William A. Dembski’s Project of Intelligent Design), a big picture of Dembski’s theory of intelligent design is constructed and the overall success of his project is as-sessed. It is also analysed whether the implications of Dembski’s theory for the practices of science—methodological naturalism, in particular—are as significant as he claims (research question 3). Some theological viewpoints regarding the connection between intelligent design and Christianity are also considered (research question 4).36
34 Paul Nelson (2002) describes Intelligent Design as a “big tent”, under which “any number of particular theories may also be possible, including traditional creationism, progressive (or ‘Old-Earth’) creationism, and theistic evolution”–although this view is not shared by all followers of Intelligent Design, many of whom see theistic evolutionism and intelligent design as being at odds (see Ch. 4.1.4). Dembski (2006b, 20) writes that he has “seen intelligent design embraced by Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics and even atheists.”
35 The bolding in Article II reflects the choices of the publisher and not those of the author.
36 Regarding Article IV, during the editing process, three of my original Internet sources were removed and replaced with references to ”Southern Baptist Theological Seminary website”, ”CitizenLink website” and
“interview (…) published on Sean McDowell Blog”. The original sources are, respectively, Robinson 2004;
Williams 2007; McDowell 2016.
2.3 METHOD OF THE STUDY
The method of the study is systematic analysis. In systematic theology, “systematic analysis” usually refers to a collection of analytic methods by which the researcher aims at:
1) clarifying the inner world of the texts examined by analysing the concepts, presuppositions, assertions, and argumentation employed by the author, and 2) presenting the results of this analysis in a logically organised manner.37
Sometimes, making sense of an author’s texts can turn out to be challenging since the original texts are not in an easily analysable form. The task of systematic analy-sis is to accept this challenge and to reveal the structuring principles of the author’s thinking based on possibly multi-interpretational and ambiguous material. Possible inconsistencies and logical fallacies emerging from the texts must also be brought to light.38 Another difficulty is that the initial research questions cannot necessarily be answered on the basis of the research material. Often, research questions need to be reformulated during the research process.39
More specifically, in this study, what is meant by systematic analysis is to con-struct a comprehensive picture of Dembski’s thinking by carefully scrutinising his writings and analysing the concepts and the line of argumentation used by him. In addition to what Dembski is saying, the things he remains silent about are taken into account. The presuppositions and structuring principles not explicitly expressed by Dembski are determined in order to reveal the logicality—or illogicality—of his think-ing. Moreover, Dembski’s theory of intelligent design is mirrored against the back-drop of contemporary discussion on science and religion.
2.4 SOURCES OF THE STUDY
The main sources of the study are Dembski’s writings, most importantly the mono-graphs The Design Inference. Eliminating Chance through Small Possibilities40 and No Free Lunch. Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence41. These pieces of work are constitutive to Dembski’s theory: in the former, he formulates the concept of specified complexity and in the latter, he explains why specified complexity neces-sarily implies the existence of an intelligent designer. Other frequently used sources include Dembski’s books The Design Revolution. Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design42, Intelligent Design. The Bridge Between Science and Theology43, and
37 Jolkkonen 2007.
38 Heinonen 2001.
39 Nurmi 2014.
40 Dembski 1998a.
41 Dembski 2002a.
42 Dembski 2004a.
43 Dembski 1999.
Being as Communion. Metaphysics of Information44, which offer broader perspectives on the theory of intelligent design and in which Dembski explains his ideas in a more non-technical language. In addition, I will be using several other books and articles written by Dembski, in which he sharpens and refines the details of his design argu-ment and expresses his philosophical and theological views more widely.45
44 Dembski 2014.
45 Not all Dembski’s publications are listed as sources in this study. In many of his writings, Dembski cir-culates the same ideas (even verbatim), and therefore listing all the publications only in order to present an exhaustive bibliography would not add anything to the analysis.